[Steve_American]

They are indisputably facts. That is why, unlike you, I urge readers to think for themselves rather than just accept and believe.

Nope. Flat wrong. It was more:
"During this epoch, often known as the Little Ice Age, temperatures dropped by as much as two degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit."
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019 ... ed-history

Right: if CO2 emissions from fossil fuels do not provide enough warming effect to save us, we could well be facing a new Ice Age.

No, Dr. Britt did not "show" that. He merely claimed it on the basis of flimsy evidence and risible post hoc fallacies. In fact, it has been shown that the LIA had already started by the time of the Black Death, and the cooler temperatures probably contributed to it by changing Asian rats' wintering strategies.

That merely proves that anti-fossil-fuel hysteria mongers will say and believe anything.

No, there was still almost no use of coal when the LIA ended.

But the problem is, you don't know any of the relevant science, and your "calculations" are nonscience.

I googled little ice age, and I got this as the 1st thing.
"The Little Ice Age was a period of bitter winters and mild summers that affected Europe and North America between the 14th and 19th centuries. The cold weather is well documented in written records and supported by paleoclimatic records such as tree rings, glacial growth, and lake sediments.
Jul 24, 2022

The Little Ice Age Wasn't Global, but Current Climate Change Is"

Some say the LIA lasted until 1850, which clearly is in the era of coal burning. So, TtP is totally wrong about this fact. What others is he wrong about?

Then it says that the LIA wasn't global. That it was mostly in N. America and Europe. So, the extreme temp change in those areas is wiped out when averages into the rest of the world. Again ToP is wrong in a fact that he confidently presented as a fact.

.

.

[Pants-of-dog]

Of course it is. You cannot alter facts by refusing to know them, sorry.

Because most readers are intelligent enough to understand that adding a subordinate or relative clause to a false statement to make it into a true one is one way of showing that the original is false, and honest enough not to pretend that they are unfamiliar with this form of response.

Already done -- as you know, but are, as usual, disingenuously pretending not to.

At this point, you are hot even discussing climate change any more.

Your claim that ACC saves more lives than it destroys is dismissed due to lack of support.

Here is a study that shows that warmer temperatures do not necessarily mean less cold deaths. They looked for that relationship and found no evidence thereof:

Extreme heat events are associated with spikes in mortality, yet death rates are on average highest during the coldest months of the year. Under the assumption that most winter excess mortality is due to cold temperature, many previous studies have concluded that winter mortality will substantially decline in a warming climate. We analyzed whether and to what extent cold temperatures are associated with excess winter mortality across multiple cities and over multiple years within individual cities, using daily temperature and mortality data from 36 US cities (1985–2006) and 3 French cities (1971–2007). Comparing across cities, we found that excess winter mortality did not depend on seasonal temperature range, and was no lower in warmer vs. colder cities, suggesting that temperature is not a key driver of winter excess mortality. Using regression models within monthly strata, we found that variability in daily mortality within cities was not strongly influenced by winter temperature. Finally we found that inadequate control for seasonality in analyses of the effects of cold temperatures led to spuriously large assumed cold effects, and erroneous attribution of winter mortality to cold temperatures. Our findings suggest that reductions in cold-related mortality under warming climate may be much smaller than some have assumed. This should be of interest to researchers and policy makers concerned with projecting future health effects of climate change and developing relevant adaptation strategies.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... 0/6/064016

[late]

nonscience.

It's the scientists that decide that, but then, as a paid troll, you are anti-science..

[Truth To Power]

I googled little ice age, and I got this as the 1st thing.

Google's algorithm has been tuned to minimize users' access to information that disproves the CO2-governs-climate narrative and maximize their exposure to the CO2-centered narrative.

"The Little Ice Age was a period of bitter winters and mild summers that affected Europe and North America between the 14th and 19th centuries. The cold weather is well documented in written records and supported by paleoclimatic records such as tree rings, glacial growth, and lake sediments.
The Little Ice Age Wasn't Global, but Current Climate Change Is"

No. Like the MWP, the LIA was global. Climate change deniers have been trying to remove the MWP and LIA from the climate record at least since Lyin' Michael Mann's hockey stick fraud.

Some say the LIA lasted until 1850, which clearly is in the era of coal burning.

There is some disagreement about when the LIA ended, and it was not the same everywhere. The last London Frost Fair was in 1814. While coal was being used by 1850, the amounts were still very small relative to natural carbon processes.

So, TtP is totally wrong about this fact.

No, I am of course objectively correct.

What others is he wrong about?

You have not identified any.

Then it says that the LIA wasn't global.

But that claim is in error. Like the MWP, the LIA is well documented globally. Climate change deniers have simply been deleting or altering the records that prove it.

That it was mostly in N. America and Europe.

No. Like the MWP, it was just more pronounced in the Northern Hemisphere because the Southern Hemisphere is 90% ocean.

So, the extreme temp change in those areas is wiped out when averages into the rest of the world.

No, that claim is objectively false.

Again ToP is wrong in a fact that he confidently presented as a fact.

No, I am as usual objectively correct.

[Truth To Power]

At this point, you are hot even discussing climate change any more.

I was responding to your inane comments about my choice of grammar, which were definitely not relevant to climate change.

Your claim that ACC saves more lives than it destroys is dismissed due to lack of support.

As you know, but are disingenuously pretending not to, I already supported it in post #6117 in this thread. You are dismissing it because you cannot refute it.

Here is a study that shows that warmer temperatures do not necessarily mean less cold deaths. They looked for that relationship and found no evidence thereof:

Extreme heat events are associated with spikes in mortality, yet death rates are on average highest during the coldest months of the year. Under the assumption that most winter excess mortality is due to cold temperature, many previous studies have concluded that winter mortality will substantially decline in a warming climate. We analyzed whether and to what extent cold temperatures are associated with excess winter mortality across multiple cities and over multiple years within individual cities, using daily temperature and mortality data from 36 US cities (1985–2006) and 3 French cities (1971–2007). Comparing across cities, we found that excess winter mortality did not depend on seasonal temperature range, and was no lower in warmer vs. colder cities, suggesting that temperature is not a key driver of winter excess mortality. Using regression models within monthly strata, we found that variability in daily mortality within cities was not strongly influenced by winter temperature. Finally we found that inadequate control for seasonality in analyses of the effects of cold temperatures led to spuriously large assumed cold effects, and erroneous attribution of winter mortality to cold temperatures. Our findings suggest that reductions in cold-related mortality under warming climate may be much smaller than some have assumed. This should be of interest to researchers and policy makers concerned with projecting future health effects of climate change and developing relevant adaptation strategies.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... 0/6/064016

It's easy to contrive disingenuous and unscientific methodologies to obscure causal relationships. The task of science is to identify and explicate them. In this case, the authors of the paper contrived to remove the effect of cold on death rates by comparing death rates in warmer and colder cities, ignoring the fact that people in colder cities tend to be better prepared for cold snaps than people in warmer ones. This sort of methodological fraud is extremely common in CO2-centered climate "science."

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

You just make up some weird ad hominem every time a study contradicts your claims.

Funny how every scientist who disagrees with you just happens to be evil.

Anthropogenic climate change seems to also be causing an increase in disease.

It is relatively well accepted that climate change can affect human pathogenic diseases; however, the full extent of this risk remains poorly quantified. Here we carried out a systematic search for empirical examples about the impacts of ten climatic hazards sensitive to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on each known human pathogenic disease. We found that 58% (that is, 218 out of 375) of infectious diseases confronted by humanity worldwide have been at some point aggravated by climatic hazards; 16% were at times diminished. Empirical cases revealed 1,006 unique pathways in which climatic hazards, via different transmission types, led to pathogenic diseases. The human pathogenic diseases and transmission pathways aggravated by climatic hazards are too numerous for comprehensive societal adaptations, highlighting the urgent need to work at the source of the problem: reducing GHG emissions.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01426-1

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

You just make up some weird ad hominem every time a study contradicts your claims.

I identified a fraudulent methodology. That is not an ad hominem.

Funny how every scientist who disagrees with you just happens to be evil.

You simply made that up.

Anthropogenic climate change seems to also be causing an increase in disease.

It is relatively well accepted that climate change can affect human pathogenic diseases; however, the full extent of this risk remains poorly quantified. Here we carried out a systematic search for empirical examples about the impacts of ten climatic hazards sensitive to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on each known human pathogenic disease. We found that 58% (that is, 218 out of 375) of infectious diseases confronted by humanity worldwide have been at some point aggravated by climatic hazards; 16% were at times diminished. Empirical cases revealed 1,006 unique pathways in which climatic hazards, via different transmission types, led to pathogenic diseases. The human pathogenic diseases and transmission pathways aggravated by climatic hazards are too numerous for comprehensive societal adaptations, highlighting the urgent need to work at the source of the problem: reducing GHG emissions.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01426-1

No, this ridiculous and dishonest paper is no better than your previous effort. It is indeed well known that many contagious diseases are associated with warmer temperatures: the tropics are home to many more contagious diseases than higher latitudes. That is partly because people evolved in the tropics, so warmer temperatures are more congenial to both human beings and the human pathogens that have evolved to prey on us. The authors of this idiotic paper, however, then make a huge non sequitur leap of fallacious reasoning, claiming GHG emissions are "the source" of higher temperatures when they have established no such thing -- and neither has anyone else. This nonscience is particularly dishonest as the authors are well aware that every previous, similar warming episode was not caused by GHG emissions

[Pants-of-dog]

I identified a fraudulent methodology. That is not an ad hominem.

You simply made that up.

Not really. When you accuse scientists of deliberately lying to obscure the truth, and refuse to support your criticism, you are relying on the reader accepting your insulting comments at face value.

No, you will have to support your criticism by showing it negates the results.

No, this ridiculous and dishonest paper is no better than your previous effort. It is indeed well known that many contagious diseases are associated with warmer temperatures: the tropics are home to many more contagious diseases than higher latitudes. That is partly because people evolved in the tropics, so warmer temperatures are more congenial to both human beings and the human pathogens that have evolved to prey on us. The authors of this idiotic paper, however, then make a huge non sequitur leap of fallacious reasoning, claiming GHG emissions are "the source" of higher temperatures when they have established no such thing -- and neither has anyone else. This nonscience is particularly dishonest as the authors are well aware that previous, similar warming episodes were not caused by GHG emissions

More ad hominems and unsupported claims.

————-

So we see that ACC has caused more deaths from heat.

We also have seen that the number of deaths avoided from cold deaths are probably exaggerated.

We also know that ACC causes cold snaps that kill people.

We also see that ACC is increasing diseases.

TtP, Your claim that ACC saves more lives than it takes is getting less and less plausible.

[Pants-of-dog]

Do you want to look at flooding next?

[Truth To Power]

Not really. When you accuse scientists of deliberately lying to obscure the truth, and refuse to support your criticism,

You are aware of the fact that I have supported my criticisms, and that you are falsely and disingenuously pretending I have not.

you are relying on the reader accepting your insulting comments at face value.

Identifying fallacious reasoning is not "insulting."

No, you will have to support your criticism by showing it negates the results.

I already did -- as you know, but always falsely and disingenuously deny.

More ad hominems and unsupported claims.

No. Explaining why someone's reasoning is fallacious, disingenuous, and scientifically invalid is not an ad hominem or unsupported claim. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way to explain that to you.

So we see that ACC has caused more deaths from heat.

Right: about 1/20 of the number it has saved from cold.

We also have seen that the number of deaths avoided from cold deaths are probably exaggerated.

No, all we saw was a fallacious and disingenuous claim to that effect, which I conclusively refuted.

We also know that ACC causes cold snaps that kill people.

Nope. Flat wrong. All we know is that that is a theoretical possibility, like the possibility that seatbelts cause traffic accidents that kill people by giving drivers a false sense of security.

We also see that ACC is increasing diseases.

No, that is also just a theoretical possibility that has not been established by credible empirical evidence.

TtP, Your claim that ACC saves more lives than it takes is getting less and less plausible.

Only if you consider theoretical possibilities to be more factual than facts.

[Truth To Power]

Do you want to look at flooding next?

Why? Is your disingenuous disinformation on that topic any more plausible or interesting than your disinformation on temperature extremes? I.e., do you have anything to say, other than that flooding and droughts are somehow both caused by CO2, like heat waves and cold snaps??

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

No. You did not provide evidence for your claim that the authors were "ignoring the fact that people in colder cities tend to be better prepared for cold snaps than people in warmer ones".

Nor dis you provide evidence that "people in colder cities tend to be better prepared for cold snaps than people in warmer ones".

Nor did you show that this would.have a significant impact on the findings of the study.

Do so now.

[Pants-of-dog]

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/scientists ... ew%20study.

Severe winter storms and unusual cold snaps, like the one that hit Texas in February, are, paradoxically, becoming more frequent as temperatures rise, and are linked to rapid warming in the Arctic, according to a new study. For more than a decade, scientists have warned that a warming Arctic and the rapid loss of Arctic sea ice are weakening the polar vortex — a band of powerful, high-altitude winds encircling the North Pole — allowing frigid air to reach further south.

The new study links those changes in the polar vortex to cold snaps like the severe weather in Texas last winter.

“It is counterintuitive that a rapidly warming Arctic can lead to an increase in extreme cold in a place as far south as Texas, but the lesson from our analysis is to expect the unexpected with climate change,” Judah Cohen, a winter storm expert for Atmospheric Environmental Research and lead author of the study, told the Associated Press.

Analyzing changes in the Arctic over the last 40 years, the researchers showed that rising polar temperatures are causing the polar vortex to wriggle and stretch. The vortex is now weakened more than twice as often each year as it was in the early 1980s, according to the study, published in the journal Science. The distortions and stalling of the polar vortex are increasingly delivering uncommonly cold winter weather to the central and eastern United States, while allowing warmer air to flow into the Arctic, further intensifying warming there.

...(article continues)

Science indicates that ACC causes cold snaps.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power
No. You did not provide evidence for your claim that the authors were "ignoring the fact that people in colder cities tend to be better prepared for cold snaps than people in warmer ones".

Because the burden of proof is on the positive claim. One is never required to provide evidence that the other side's argument doesn't exist, only that it does. Similarly, you cannot provide evidence that I did not provide such evidence. You can only challenge me to show where I did. Likewise, I can only challenge you to show where those researchers accounted for the effect I described.

And you can't.

Nor dis you provide evidence that "people in colder cities tend to be better prepared for cold snaps than people in warmer ones".

Because one is also never required to provide evidence for facts that every normal, honest person over the age of ten knows perfectly well to be true.

Nor did you show that this would.have a significant impact on the findings of the study.

Are you serious? See above. The FACT that people in colder cities are better prepared for the cold than people in warmer ones would self-evidently reduce their death rate in cold snaps.

Do so now.

Sorry, I'm not going down the all-too-familiar rabbit hole where your only "argument" is your blank and disingenuous refusal to know, and equally disingenuous demand that I provide evidence for, self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality that every normal adult knows.

[Pants-of-dog]

Because the burden of proof is on the positive claim. One is never required to provide evidence that the other side's argument doesn't exist, only that it does. Similarly, you cannot provide evidence that I did not provide such evidence. You can only challenge me to show where I did. Likewise, I can only challenge you to show where those researchers accounted for the effect I described.

And you can't.

Because one is also never required to provide evidence for facts that every normal, honest person over the age of ten knows perfectly well to be true.

Are you serious? See above. The FACT that people in colder cities are better prepared for the cold than people in warmer ones would self-evidently reduce their death rate in cold snaps.

Sorry, I'm not going down the all-too-familiar rabbit hole where your only "argument" is your blank and disingenuous refusal to know, and equally disingenuous demand that I provide evidence for, self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality that every normal adult knows.

Funny. I think I just proved my negative claim: that you did not provide evidence. In fact, you are agreeing that you did not support your claim, and are justifying this omission by arguing that negative claims can not be supported, which is obviously untrue.

Also, the study specifically mentions looking at differences between warmer and colder cities.

It found that "found that excess winter mortality ... was no lower in warmer vs. colder cities". It was even in the part I quoted.

But even if we assume your criticism is correct, it only means that ACC does not save lives in all climates but only in certain ones. So it is still correct to say that the number of lives saved has been exaggerated.

[Truth To Power]

Funny. I think I just proved my negative claim: that you did not provide evidence.

No you didn't. You offered no evidence whatever for it, nor will you ever be doing so, because you can't. You have merely claimed it.

In fact, you are agreeing that you did not support your claim,

That is not evidence, let alone proof, that you provided.

See how that works?

and are justifying this omission

Not doing the impossible is not an "omission," no matter how disingenuously you claim it is.

by arguing that negative claims can not be supported, which is obviously untrue.

That depends on the type of negative claim. Some kinds of negative claims can be supported, such as a claim that Boris Johnson is not a potato. However, other kinds of negative claims, such as a claim that a certain thing does not exist -- a grammatical sentence of 5609 words, for example -- cannot be supported. It can only be refuted, by identifying such a sentence. Likewise, a claim that someone has not considered a certain factor cannot be supported, only refuted by showing where they did consider it. As you cannot show where the researchers accounted for the fact that people in cold cities tend to be better prepared for the cold, my statement that they ignored that factor stands.

Also, the study specifically mentions looking at differences between warmer and colder cities.

While ignoring the fact that the reason they have similar death rates in cold snaps is that the people in the colder cities are better prepared for the cold.

It found that "found that excess winter mortality ... was no lower in warmer vs. colder cities". It was even in the part I quoted.

Yes, and I explained to you, very patiently, in clear, simple, grammatical English, why that was bad science: the authors ignored the confounding factor of differences in citizens' preparedness for the cold.

But even if we assume your criticism is correct,

You are aware of the fact that it is correct.

it only means that ACC

To the modest extent that it has any effect on surface temperature...

does not save lives in all climates but only in certain ones. So it is still correct to say that the number of lives saved has been exaggerated.

No, because that is just another non sequitur fallacy on your part. The lack of deaths from the cold in tropical climates does not affect the relationship between deaths and temperature because it is already included in the statistics on temperature-related deaths. No one has exaggerated the statistics by claiming people have died of the cold in hot climates. You have simply made that up. The statistics simply record the fact that many more people die of cold than of heat. There is no exaggeration involved. You made it up. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way of explaining that to you.

[Pants-of-dog]

No you didn't. You offered no evidence whatever for it, nor will you ever be doing so, because you can't. You have merely claimed it.

That is not evidence, let alone proof, that you provided.

See how that works?

Not doing the impossible is not an "omission," no matter how disingenuously you claim it is.

That depends on the type of negative claim. Some kinds of negative claims can be supported, such as a claim that Boris Johnson is not a potato. However, other kinds of negative claims, such as a claim that a certain thing does not exist -- a grammatical sentence of 5609 words, for example -- cannot be supported. It can only be refuted, by identifying such a sentence. Likewise, a claim that someone has not considered a certain factor cannot be supported, only refuted by showing where they did consider it. As you cannot show where the researchers accounted for the fact that people in cold cities tend to be better prepared for the cold, my statement that they ignored that factor stands.

While ignoring the fact that the reason they have similar death rates in cold snaps is that the people in the colder cities are better prepared for the cold.

Yes, and I explained to you, very patiently, in clear, simple, grammatical English, why that was bad science: the authors ignored the confounding factor of differences in citizens' preparedness for the cold.

You are aware of the fact that it is correct.

To the modest extent that it has any effect on surface temperature...

No, because that is just another non sequitur fallacy on your part. The lack of deaths from the cold in tropical climates does not affect the relationship between deaths and temperature because it is already included in the statistics on temperature-related deaths. No one has exaggerated the statistics by claiming people have died of the cold in hot climates. You have simply made that up. The statistics simply record the fact that many more people die of cold than of heat. There is no exaggeration involved. You made it up. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way of explaining that to you.

Since you are not supporting your illogical and ad hoc criticism, I am going to assume this study stands.

[Pants-of-dog]

Also, note that if people in colder cities are better prepared for cold snaps and those preparations are saving lives, then these lives are not being saved by ACC.

[Truth To Power]

Since you are not supporting your illogical and ad hoc criticism,

Everyone reading this knows that is false. My criticism is perfectly logical, as always.

[Truth To Power]

Also, note that if people in colder cities are better prepared for cold snaps and those preparations are saving lives, then these lives are not being saved by ACC.

You again merely prove your total innocence of logic and scientific reasoning. If ACC has raised temperature by 1C (it hasn't), and someone prepared for the cold would have died if it had been 0.5C colder, their life has indisputably been saved by ACC. You would merely prefer that they die for your proved-false religious beliefs rather than demonstrate, by their survival, that your anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda is false and evil.