[BlutoSays]

To the areas of science making progress.

Yet we know you're a liar about progress. You define progress as anything you want.

[late]

Yet we know you're a liar about progress. You define progress as anything you want.

You are projecting again, I don't need to lie...

[BlutoSays]

You are projecting again, I don't need to lie...

You lie in every post.

"Facts have a well known liberal bias"

[late]

You lie in every post.

You can't be taken seriously.

But I do like it when your source contradicts your 'argument'..

[Truth To Power]

"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

Yes, on the basis of that Climate Feedback "fact-check," which consisted largely of bald, transparent, and even absurd lies, Facebook prohibited its users from even mentioning the letter.

But fortunately, we have recourse to our infallible indicator: whoever is trying to silence the other side is always wrong.

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

There was essentially no such thing as a degree in climatology until anti-fossil-fuel hysteria made it fashionable and lucrative.

Can you say paid hack? I knew you could, birds of a feather...

No, but I can say "ad hominem fallacy," and I know what it means.

[Truth To Power]

No.

Yes.

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.

It increased microscopically in the brief period of the study, but has fallen massively since the 19th century.

Yes.

No.

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

I see. So, when the evil, unscientific, and insane anti-fossil-fuel public policies you advocate deprive poor, vulnerable people of access to the cheap, safe fossil fuels they need to survive, killing millions of them per year, nevertheless save even one person from a heat-related death, then the millions of innocent human beings you murder per year by depriving them of access to fossil fuels are "irrelevant."

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that....

Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot would be proud of you.

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?

No, just pointing out what is really irrelevant: an increase of 0.23% in 20 years by comparison with a decrease of ~90% in 120 years.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes.

It increased microscopically in the brief period of the study, but has fallen massively since the 19th century.

Again, that was not your original claim.

No.

I see. So, when the evil, unscientific, and insane anti-fossil-fuel public policies you advocate deprive poor, vulnerable people of access to the cheap, safe fossil fuels they need to survive, killing millions of them per year, nevertheless save even one person from a heat-related death, then the millions of innocent human beings you murder per year by depriving them of access to fossil fuels are "irrelevant."

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that....

Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot would be proud of you.

Since you were objectively incorrect when you argued that heat deaths were decreasing, you are now changing your argument to the moral level.

And again, the same study mentions that millions die each year from climate change, and that you are the one ignoring these deaths. How moral.

No, just pointing out what is really irrelevant: an increase of 0.23% in 20 years by comparison with a decrease of ~90% in 120 years.

So we agree that heat deaths are increasing right now.

[Truth To Power]

Again, that was not your original claim.

Sure it was. I said heat-related deaths have decreased, not that they decreased in every time period one might select to study.

Since you were objectively incorrect when you argued that heat deaths were decreasing,

No, you are objectively incorrect to claim that I argued heat deaths were decreasing. I said they had decreased -- and I was of course objectively correct about that -- and would continue to do so.

you are now changing your argument to the moral level.

No, you are falsely and disingenuously claiming I made an argument I did not make. That sort of strawman fallacy is your stock in trade, your modus operandi -- in effect, all you know how to do.

And again, the same study mentions that millions die each year from climate change, and that you are the one ignoring these deaths. How moral.

No, that study simply assumes that all weather-related deaths are caused by "climate change," a fallacious, absurd, and disingenuous -- not to mention anti-scientific -- claim.
[/quote]So we agree that heat deaths are increasing right now.[/quote]
No, we agree that they increased during the time of the study. We don't and can't know if they are increasing right now, and won't for years.

[Pants-of-dog]

Sure it was. I said heat-related deaths have decreased, not that they decreased in every time period one might select to study.

No, you are objectively incorrect to claim that I argued heat deaths were decreasing. I said they had decreased -- and I was of course objectively correct about that -- and would continue to do so.

No, you are falsely and disingenuously claiming I made an argument I did not make. That sort of strawman fallacy is your stock in trade, your modus operandi -- in effect, all you know how to do.

@Truth To Power

Your original claim was that heat deaths would continue to decrease in the foreseeable future as they are now.

Now you seem to be saying that you claimed that they decreased at some random point in the past. Which would be odd since we are discussing the current climate crisis and not this random point in the past, so your point would be irrelevant.

No, that study simply assumes that all weather-related deaths are caused by "climate change," a fallacious, absurd, and disingenuous -- not to mention anti-scientific -- claim.

No. In their methodology section, they talk about how they use this database for weather and mortality:
https://mccstudy.lshtm.ac.uk/

Are you going to say that the data and analyses on that website are all just the single assumption you mention?

No, we agree that they increased during the time of the study. We don't and can't know if they are increasing right now, and won't for years.

So, from 2005 to 2019.

Note that you are now pointing out that the original claim (i.e. that heat deaths are decreasing right now) is an unverifiable claim.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power
Your original claim was that heat deaths would continue to decrease in the foreseeable future as they are now.

No it was not. You are simply falsely attributing that claim to me because that is the only sort of "argument" you ever seem to make. That is why you claim I have said these things but can never quote me saying them. What I said was that heat deaths had decreased and would continue to do so in the future, both of which are correct no matter how much you pretend I said something else.

Now you seem to be saying that you claimed that they decreased at some random point in the past.

No, that is again something you simply made up and have falsely attributed to me. There is nothing random about the fact that in the last century, use of fossil fuels made water, shelter, and cooling systems accessible to billions of people in tropical and subtropical countries, millions of whom would otherwise have perished in heat waves.

Which would be odd since we are discussing the current climate crisis

No we are not, because there is no such thing as the current climate crisis. What we are discussing is the empirically false and absurd claim that CO2 from use of fossil fuels will somehow aggravate the mortality people suffer in heatwaves.

and not this random point in the past, so your point would be irrelevant.

The "random point" is another outright fabrication on your part.

No. In their methodology section, they talk about how they use this database for weather and mortality:
https://mccstudy.lshtm.ac.uk/

And it shows that they incorrectly and dishonestly attribute weather-related deaths to "climate change."

Are you going to say that the data and analyses on that website are all just the single assumption you mention?

That is the gravamen of what they have done.

Note that you are now pointing out that the original claim (i.e. that heat deaths are decreasing right now) is an unverifiable claim.

Note that you again have to resort to making false claims about what I have said. It's always the same.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

So, heat deaths are increasing now.

There is a detailed and verifiable database showing weather extremes and their effect on mortality.

Five million people die each year from climate chnage.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

So, heat deaths are increasing now.

Which is a highly misleading factoid, because while heat deaths may be increasing by X per year, cold deaths are decreasing by 20X. You have simply decided that you prefer 20 people to die of cold than for one person to die of heat. You prefer to murder the 20 to save the one. That is, of course, evil.

There is a detailed and verifiable database showing weather extremes and their effect on mortality.

And it shows warmer average temperatures save lives.

Five million people die each year from climate chnage.

No, because extreme weather is not climate change.

[late]

No, because extreme weather is not climate change.

Climatology is not done by kooks or paid trolls.

I suspect you are both.

Again, climate change was noticed nearly half a century ago, and NEVER seriously challenged. What you are doing is brain dead.

[Truth To Power]

Climatology is not done by kooks or paid trolls.

I suspect you are both.

And you are of course objectively wrong on both counts.

Again, climate change was noticed nearly half a century ago, and NEVER seriously challenged. What you are doing is brain dead.

Climate has been changing for the entire 4.5Gy history of the earth. What is really brain dead is the notion that if we would just stop using fossil fuels, climate would somehow stop changing.

[Pants-of-dog]

Which is a highly misleading factoid, because while heat deaths may be increasing by X per year, cold deaths are decreasing by 20X. You have simply decided that you prefer 20 people to die of cold than for one person to die of heat. You prefer to murder the 20 to save the one. That is, of course, evil.

Strawman and ad hominem.

And it shows warmer average temperatures save lives.

Yes, and it also shows that warmer average temperatures takes away lives.

No, because extreme weather is not climate change.

If climate change causes extreme weather which in turn causes deaths, and the extreme weather would not have occurred without climate change, then it is logical to attribute said deaths to climate change.

[late]

Climate has been changing for the entire 4.5Gy history of the earth. What is really brain dead is the notion that if we would just stop using fossil fuels, climate would somehow stop changing.

Brain death for you, that is. No one says that..

[Truth To Power]

Strawman and ad hominem.

Nope. That is the gravamen of what you have been saying.

Yes, and it also shows that warmer average temperatures takes away lives.

But saves many more than it takes. You just don't mind if the more that are saved are instead taken.

If climate change causes extreme weather

Which it doesn't.

which in turn causes deaths, and the extreme weather would not have occurred without climate change,

Which is antilogical and antiscientific idiocy, as climate change cannot be eliminated. You could with equal "logic" claim that Trump's obesity would not have occurred if he had no mouth.

then it is logical to attribute said deaths to climate change.

See above for proof of the absurdity of your "logic."

[Truth To Power]

Brain death for you, that is. No one says that..

Sure they do. There is no other possible meaning of your shrieking that we have to stop climate change.

[late]

stop climate change

Never said that, never will.

The goal is to slow the increase to the point where the human race might survive.

[Pants-of-dog]

Nope. That is the gravamen of what you have been saying.

But saves many more than it takes. You just don't mind if the more that are saved are instead taken.

I have provided evidence that 5 million die each year.

You have mot provided any evidence that it saves lives.

Which it doesn't.

Which is antilogical and antiscientific idiocy, as climate change cannot be eliminated. You could with equal "logic" claim that Trump's obesity would not have occurred if he had no mouth.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/23 ... te-change/

Every heatwave today was made more likely by climate change and there is no longer a need to wait for studies to tease out its role in individual extreme heat episodes, according to the scientist who pioneered such work.

Researchers usually caution against blaming specific extreme weather events on climate change. Heatwaves in China and Japan this week wouldn’t usually have been pinned on climate change before “attribution studies” to work out how likely the heatwaves are in a world with our changed climate and one without. Such studies have come of age in the past decade, led by Friederike Otto at Imperial College London, and can now be turned around in days.

However, Otto says, for heatwaves at least, we no longer need to wait before declaring climate change’s role. “I think we can very confidently now say that every heatwave that is occurring today has been made more intense and more likely because of climate change,” she says. While changes to land use might after affect the likelihood, she adds: “There is no doubt that climate change is really an absolute game changer when it comes to heatwaves.”

…(article continues)…