100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3632
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lausten » Wed Dec 05, 2018 6:35 pm

landrew wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:30 pm
Alarmism is foolishness. It hurts the real cause in ways that divide people up into 2 warring tribes. It gives fodder to the denialists who find it very easy to point to alarmist claims and debunk them mercilessly.

Look at this headline: "100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030." Seriously? That's not alarmist?

Thanks a lot. I think the cause is better served without such help.
I've never seen a claim like that debunked, not when it was backed up by evidence.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8867
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Wed Dec 05, 2018 6:46 pm

Lausten wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 6:35 pm
landrew wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:30 pm
Alarmism is foolishness. It hurts the real cause in ways that divide people up into 2 warring tribes. It gives fodder to the denialists who find it very easy to point to alarmist claims and debunk them mercilessly.

Look at this headline: "100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030." Seriously? That's not alarmist?

Thanks a lot. I think the cause is better served without such help.
I've never seen a claim like that debunked, not when it was backed up by evidence.
I don't think it's a claim, so it can't be debunked. It's a prediction, which will eventually be judged when the said date is passed. Based on the long list of failed past predictions, the confidence level for the accuracy of this type of prediction is not very high.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15564
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Dec 05, 2018 6:50 pm

landrew wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 6:46 pm
Lausten wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 6:35 pm
landrew wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:30 pm
Alarmism is foolishness. It hurts the real cause in ways that divide people up into 2 warring tribes. It gives fodder to the denialists who find it very easy to point to alarmist claims and debunk them mercilessly.

Look at this headline: "100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030." Seriously? That's not alarmist?

Thanks a lot. I think the cause is better served without such help.
I've never seen a claim like that debunked, not when it was backed up by evidence.
I don't think it's a claim, so it can't be debunked. It's a prediction, which will eventually be judged when the said date is passed. Based on the long list of failed past predictions, the confidence level for the accuracy of this type of prediction is not very high.
What prediction exactly?..............I mean.............don't make me cry...............I assume and give you the respect that you aren't including the cartoons you posted as a joke.......................right?

.......................................NAME ONE. eg: The "We are going to have freezing"....came from a popular cultural magazine with reporters interviewing fishermen. We all need to separate science from................................................selling fish wrap.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11866
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:01 pm

The claim that 100 million will die from global warming by 2030 is just so much total horse manure. There is no evidence for it, no logic, no rational thought, and no likelihood. It is just another one of numerous doomsday predictions which time proves wrong.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8867
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:16 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:01 pm
The claim that 100 million will die from global warming by 2030 is just so much total horse manure. There is no evidence for it, no logic, no rational thought, and no likelihood. It is just another one of numerous doomsday predictions which time proves wrong.
Exactly. Sometimes a cartoon is the best way to convey absurdity.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15564
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:59 pm

The claim that 2 + 2 is just so much total horse manure. There is no evidence for it, no logic, no rational thought, and no likelihood. It is just another one of numerous science denying dodges which time proves wrong.

……..or...….both of you can PAY ATTENTION to what was already posted: its a PREDICTION. Totally achievable or NOT by whatever variables, casual effects, you want to include. EG: how many wars over water will take place? How many deaths from contaminated water? .........VARIABLES........ as stated so often: Knowledge and Imagination.

..............................silly hoomans.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8867
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:24 pm

If you're in the habit of calling 911 too many times for no good reason, you may find that no one will respond some day when you really need it.
That would be termed a "false alarmist."

a·larm·ist
/əˈlärməst
noun
1. someone who is considered to be exaggerating a danger and so causing needless worry or panic.
synonyms: scaremonger, fearmonger, doomster, doomsayer, Cassandra, Chicken Little
"until I saw the map and radar photos of the hurricane, I thought he was being an alarmist"
adjective
1. creating needless worry or panic.
"alarmist rumors"
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11593
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by OlegTheBatty » Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:42 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:59 pm
The claim that 2 + 2 is just so much total horse manure. There is no evidence for it, no logic, no rational thought, and no likelihood. It is just another one of numerous science denying dodges which time proves wrong.

……..or...….both of you can PAY ATTENTION to what was already posted: its a PREDICTION. Totally achievable or NOT by whatever variables, casual effects, you want to include. EG: how many wars over water will take place?
OK, I'll bite. How many? Who will be the combatants? How will they fight? (eg: sticks and stones, political negotiation, nuclear weapons)

[/quote] How many deaths from contaminated water?[/quote]
What is causing the contamination? Where is it occurring?

.........VARIABLES........
What other variables are going into this calculation? How do you evaluate them? Show your work!

[/quote]as stated so often: Knowledge[/quote]

1%
Imagination.
99%

Unless you can specify each component of the prediction, and justify (with error bars) how each is evaluated, the prediction isn't worth a hill of beans.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11866
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:05 pm

It is quite possible to make a prediction with a reasonable probability of coming true, or nearly true. You do this by looking at past trends and projecting them into the future.

On this basis, knowing about past trends in doomsday predictions, I can confidently predict that this one, also, will be wrong.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15564
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:13 pm

Ha, ha...……………………….."Three to One"...……."Three to One.....baby" ==ref the Doors, but I think they said Five to one?

Good thing I have 99% of qualified scientists on my side. Note: I posted the Link, criticized it myself.

I PREDICT: more and more such Alarmist Headlines...…..until the water is up to your arm pits and the Alarm is too late.

……..…...silly hoomans.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15564
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:20 pm

Since I actually have "some" interest in the subject, FIRST TIME: I googled (ipcc death estimates scenarios) and was actually surprised by what is available. May take awhile to find anything on point.....darn scientists with their conservative ways. But....may be of interest to y'all as well.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8867
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:29 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:13 pm
Ha, ha...……………………….."Three to One"...……."Three to One.....baby" ==ref the Doors, but I think they said Five to one?

Good thing I have 99% of qualified scientists on my side. Note: I posted the Link, criticized it myself.

I PREDICT: more and more such Alarmist Headlines...…..until the water is up to your arm pits and the Alarm is too late.

……..…...silly hoomans.
That does sound silly. If we were up to our armpits in water, the prediction wouldn't have been alarmist, would it?
BTW, 99% (citation needed) of scientists aren't alarmist. Your logic is bizarre lately.

I hope we can get through the climate crisis before the alarmists ruin all the climatologists' credibility.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15564
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:30 pm

Damn IPCC is not Alarmist friendly...……...I love the internet. Every year the same google search will reveal new and better info. ((How many will die from climate change by 2100)) got some excellent hits.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/ ... umans.html

Heh, heh...…………………..WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15564
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:32 pm

landrew wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:29 pm

I hope we can get through the climate crisis before the alarmists ruin all the climatologists' credibility.
IPCC has excellent credibility.....other than they are TOO CONSERVATIVE.

You continue to slop pop culture BS into the real actual science.

Faith, baby.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8867
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:45 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:32 pm
landrew wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:29 pm

I hope we can get through the climate crisis before the alarmists ruin all the climatologists' credibility.
IPCC has excellent credibility.....other than they are TOO CONSERVATIVE.

You continue to slop pop culture BS into the real actual science.

Faith, baby.
Yes but you are confused in your terminology. You seem to define "alarmist" as someone who gives appropriate and accurate warnings. An alarmist is someone who exaggerates and consistently gives dire predictions that turn out to be wrong. Distorting the facts is not the way to solve problems.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15564
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:45 pm

landrew wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:29 pm
That does sound silly. If we were up to our armpits in water, the prediction wouldn't have been alarmist, would it?
BTW, 99% (citation needed) of scientists aren't alarmist. Your logic is bizarre lately.
I didn't say the 99% were Alarmists: I SAID THEY AGREED WITH ME. See the difference?

Speaking of armpits...……..Miami /Florida still having a tough time admitting to what they live with every day...…..water only up to their ankles. Elsewhere, in New Orleans...…...people were up to their armpits WHILE SITTING ON THEIR ROOFES. So, being long term thinkers that we are all, what are they doing now?================================================>Rebuilding of course.

Silly Hoomans.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15564
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:49 pm

landrew wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:45 pm
Yes but you are confused in your terminology. You seem to define "alarmist" as someone who gives appropriate and accurate warnings. An alarmist is someone who exaggerates and consistently gives dire predictions that turn out to be wrong. Distorting the facts is not the way to solve problems.
Hmmmm, by your formulation, NO ONE is an alarmist because all the predictions are years/decades/centuries from now so NO ONE has yet been proven wrong. Alarmist/Denial. Lots of overlap.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8867
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Wed Dec 05, 2018 11:17 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:49 pm
landrew wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:45 pm
Yes but you are confused in your terminology. You seem to define "alarmist" as someone who gives appropriate and accurate warnings. An alarmist is someone who exaggerates and consistently gives dire predictions that turn out to be wrong. Distorting the facts is not the way to solve problems.
Hmmmm, by your formulation, NO ONE is an alarmist because all the predictions are years/decades/centuries from now so NO ONE has yet been proven wrong. Alarmist/Denial. Lots of overlap.
:roll:
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11866
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Dec 05, 2018 11:18 pm

The 99% figure is wrong.

The correct statistic is that 97% of climate scientists agree that the world is warming and it is due to human activity. Not that 99% of scientists agree with Bobbo. In fact, I suspect that very few would agree with him on this issue.

As for "up to our armpits in water ".
Sea level is rising at 3.2 mm per year as a global average. My armpits are 1400 mm off the ground, which means that, at the current rate, it will take over 400 years to submerge them ! If I were standing at current sea level.

Actually, my house is 80 metres above sea level, even though we look straight down at the ocean. So it will take 25,000 years at the current rate to just wet my feet.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15564
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Dec 06, 2018 12:43 am

Lance: Yeah, well, thats...……….you. What of the Millions living below sea level on land that is sinking? You sound just like Trump: It was cold last night, we need more warming.

Silly Hooman.

Just for grins: "The correct statistic is that 97% of climate scientists agree that the world is warming and it is due to human activity. Not that 99% of scientists agree with Bobbo. In fact, I suspect that very few would agree with him on this issue." Can you state the statement?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11866
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Dec 06, 2018 1:18 am

Bobbo

I can assure you I am nothing like Trump.

What I am is a person who hates intellectual horse manure. That is why I shoot down your exaggerations. If, like the IPCC, you stuck to good data, we would have no argument.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15564
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Dec 06, 2018 1:42 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 12:43 am
Just for grins: "The correct statistic is that 97% of climate scientists agree that the world is warming and it is due to human activity. Not that 99% of scientists agree with Bobbo. In fact, I suspect that very few would agree with him on this issue." Can you state the statement?
……..…………………………………….crickets………………………………………………..

……....and as always: its not "me" but my linked material.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15564
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Dec 06, 2018 10:10 am

I googled ((climate change on human beings)) and found http://www.who.int/news-room/facts-in-p ... ate-change
A highly conservative estimate of 250 000 additional deaths each year due to climate change has been projected between 2030 and 2050: of these, 38 000 from heat exposure among the elderly; 48 000 from diarrhoea; 60 000 from malaria; and 95 000 from childhood malnutrition.
So, thats only 5 Million Deaths....but I assume the curve steepens from 2050 to 2100...…….assuming no collapse. I very specifically looked for this kind of info 3-4 years ago and could not find it. Seems to pop right up now.....so AS ALWAYS...its finding the right search words to pull up what you want....and...there are more sources than the IPCC to present the details of AGW.....and every one of them is easier to understand. Talk about geeks.

IPCC may have the facts, but they sure don't present them for public consumption...…………….almost a waste of money????

TV just said this year sets a record for the amount of co2 pollution. CURVES NEED TO GO DOWN, ……...and we are accelerating them instead. Yeah, I know: Alarmist.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3632
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lausten » Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:47 pm

landrew wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 6:46 pm
Lausten wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 6:35 pm
landrew wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:30 pm
Alarmism is foolishness. It hurts the real cause in ways that divide people up into 2 warring tribes. It gives fodder to the denialists who find it very easy to point to alarmist claims and debunk them mercilessly.

Look at this headline: "100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030." Seriously? That's not alarmist?

Thanks a lot. I think the cause is better served without such help.
I've never seen a claim like that debunked, not when it was backed up by evidence.
I don't think it's a claim, so it can't be debunked. It's a prediction, which will eventually be judged when the said date is passed. Based on the long list of failed past predictions, the confidence level for the accuracy of this type of prediction is not very high.
How is a prediction not a claim? It's a falsifiable statement. Anyway.

What you and landrew did is exactly the kind of hack debunking and straw manning that I always see. It's the non-logic of "because someone was wrong about a prediction that is in this category, all predictions about this category are suspect." What has actually happened is, the predictions and dire warnings are turning out to be UNDER estimates. I assume what you will do is show me some short term data and claim it does not fit the predicted long term trend. Kind of like saying it's snowing somewhere right now, therefore global warming is wrong.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11593
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by OlegTheBatty » Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:03 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 10:10 am
I googled ((climate change on human beings)) and found http://www.who.int/news-room/facts-in-p ... ate-change
A highly conservative estimate of 250 000 additional deaths each year due to climate change has been projected between 2030 and 2050: of these, 38 000 from heat exposure among the elderly; 48 000 from diarrhoea; 60 000 from malaria; and 95 000 from childhood malnutrition.
So, thats only 5 Million Deaths....but I assume the curve steepens from 2050 to 2100...…….assuming no collapse. I very specifically looked for this kind of info 3-4 years ago and could not find it. Seems to pop right up now.....so AS ALWAYS...its finding the right search words to pull up what you want....and...there are more sources than the IPCC to present the details of AGW.....and every one of them is easier to understand. Talk about geeks.

IPCC may have the facts, but they sure don't present them for public consumption...…………….almost a waste of money????

TV just said this year sets a record for the amount of co2 pollution. CURVES NEED TO GO DOWN, ……...and we are accelerating them instead. Yeah, I know: Alarmist.
How does any of this support the prediction of 100,000,000 by 2030?
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8867
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:06 pm

Lausten wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:47 pm
landrew wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 6:46 pm
Lausten wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 6:35 pm
landrew wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:30 pm
Alarmism is foolishness. It hurts the real cause in ways that divide people up into 2 warring tribes. It gives fodder to the denialists who find it very easy to point to alarmist claims and debunk them mercilessly.

Look at this headline: "100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030." Seriously? That's not alarmist?

Thanks a lot. I think the cause is better served without such help.
I've never seen a claim like that debunked, not when it was backed up by evidence.
I don't think it's a claim, so it can't be debunked. It's a prediction, which will eventually be judged when the said date is passed. Based on the long list of failed past predictions, the confidence level for the accuracy of this type of prediction is not very high.
How is a prediction not a claim? It's a falsifiable statement. Anyway.

What you and landrew did is exactly the kind of hack debunking and straw manning that I always see. It's the non-logic of "because someone was wrong about a prediction that is in this category, all predictions about this category are suspect." What has actually happened is, the predictions and dire warnings are turning out to be UNDER estimates. I assume what you will do is show me some short term data and claim it does not fit the predicted long term trend. Kind of like saying it's snowing somewhere right now, therefore global warming is wrong.
I agree, a prediction is a claim, albeit an unfalsifiable one. That's why I declined to call it a claim. More correctly, a falsifiable claim.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11866
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:10 pm

It is still horse manure.

This kind of prediction is what I call the nowcast fallacy. In other words, it relies on a couple of current (now) projections and ignores others.

Like Ehrlich who, in 1968, predicted a billion famine deaths due to overpopulation by the end of the 1970s. Of course he was wrong, and he was wrong because he ignored improvements in food production.

Those bulldust predictions that Bobbo quotes ignore future developments such as warm climate food production (meaning no famine), and the future development of a malaria vaccine, meaning no malaria deaths. Such a vaccine is already under development. Even heat wave deaths are avoidable. The people living in Darwin, Australia, already survive very nicely in such heat wave conditions. They simply learn to take suitable measures to cope.

When people make predictions, a competent skeptic will check to make sure all factors are accounted for. Not just a cherry picked few.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15564
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:33 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:03 pm
How does any of this support the prediction of 100,000,000 by 2030?
Fair catch.......it doesn't "directly." But too many good folks think that "any" claims of death from AGW are totally fabricated.....but really I posted because it was about the first time I found actual negative predicitons. I've searched the IPCC reports and that type of common concern appreciation is not presented.

So.......who we gonna believe, the very conservative WHO organization, or those who say there is no problem we will just adapt or new tech will arrive in time.

Flying jets.......there is a reality called "being behind the power curve." You are low and slow and realize you need to "go around" and get out of the situation...........You apply FULL POWER from your 100,000 horse power power plants.......but the engines take time to "spin up" and with engines starting to really roar....you plow into the terrain one mile short of the runway. I fear too much of the hooman saving tech will be like that: arriving too late.........and billions will die because OUR GENERATION is too short sighted........... Evolution does allow for two main reactions to the unknown: alarmist or dead. Guess who wins?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8867
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:34 pm

Here's an example: If you are in the business of being a financial advisor, your reputation is based on how accurately you can predict investments. If you are consistently alarmist, and too conservative, your clients will miss out on higher returns, and you will pale beside another advisor who takes more risks. Your client list will dwindle.

On the other hand, if your predictions are consistently too optimistic, your clients will leave you because your investments were too optimistic and risky. Your client list will also dwindle as your clients lose money.

Being more realistic is the correct way forward. You do the best job by neither overstating or understating your predictions. It's a useful skill, and it tends to meet with more success.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3632
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lausten » Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:37 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:10 pm
It is still horse manure.

This kind of prediction is what I call the nowcast fallacy. In other words, it relies on a couple of current (now) projections and ignores others.

Like Ehrlich who, in 1968, predicted a billion famine deaths due to overpopulation by the end of the 1970s. Of course he was wrong, and he was wrong because he ignored improvements in food production.
What an incredibly ridiculous example. Or, I should say, thanks for proving my point. Norman Borlaug is credited with saving those billion lives. To have predicted the outcome of the Green Revolution in 1968 would have been quite the forecasting. No one in 1968 was sitting back and saying everything was going to be okay, that this whole famine thing was just going to blow over and we'd be selling snack food in Africa before the end of Nixon's run.

If you want to include everything, how about the percentage of populations, both wealthy and poor, that live on coasts? Growing food in the desert isn't going to help them.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15564
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:49 pm

Lance refuses to deal with conditioned hypotheticals and believes that tech will always find a way...…...as if the Spanish flu could never strike again....and you never know WHEN the Spanish Inquisition Flu will strike again...……..
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8867
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:54 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:49 pm
Lance refuses to deal with conditioned hypotheticals and believes that tech will always find a way...…...as if the Spanish flu could never strike again....and you never know WHEN the Spanish Inquisition Flu will strike again...……..
He's right about the detrimental affects of being too alarmist. The Spanish flu could strike again, but it would be a costly mistake to inoculate everyone every year against it. There is a skill called "risk assessment" which is a discipline designed to train us to make good decisions, rather than just sounding the alarm constantly in hopes of fending off any potential disaster. The more you learn about a situation, the better decisions you are likely to make.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11866
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Dec 06, 2018 8:14 pm

To Lausten

Agricultural productivity is a long term trend. It was not just the green revolution. Yes, I am well aware of the wonderful work done by Borlaug and associates. But the increase in productivity per acre was happening before that and continues to this day.

Right now, we have a revolution in genetic modification operating. Especially with CRISPR now in full effect. To suggest that the world will suffer famine in a few decades due to warming is just nuts. Long before then, the world will have crops that grow exceedingly well under those conditions.

My prediction is that food productivity per person will grow, not diminish over that period. After all, it has grown rather than falling over the past few centuries.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8867
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:16 pm

I remember 1975. I remember reading from many sources that we were headed into an ice age by the year 2000. There was a respectable body of evidence supporting it. Hardwood trees had disappeared from parts of Scandinavia, and there had been a significant cooling trend since about 1940. Shorter season crops were being grown as a result.

But my point is not to have a citation war about whether it was consensus or not. I wish to make the point that climate predictions are notoriously inaccurate, or at least they have been. That's what gives me little faith in climate predictions being made nowadays, at least the more calamitous ones. I don't doubt that climate change is a serious problem for our planet, but I choose neither to be a denialist or an alarmist. I try to be a realist. Call it an opinion seasoned by age.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3632
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lausten » Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:51 am

I can pretty accurately predict that we are all going die from own stupidity. Predictions of an ice age and believing science will end starvation are two things I believed when I 8 years old. The ice age thing was pretty easy to deal with, the starvation took a little longer, but only because powerful people don't want us to know that we can feed the world, but it would mean the end to yachts and snorting cocaine of hooker's patoots. That grown men are still saying these things is why the human race has at best about 200,000 years to go. I doubt seriously we will colonize other planets, more likely we'll just infect one with our germs.

People are starving in Africa because we keep wreaking havoc on their attempts to build infrastructure and develop economies. They are blind in India because we have exported our fear of technology and they are still arguing about Golden Rice. All of them are shooting at each other using weapons that we sold them. They aren't mad at Trump for not doing anything about Kashoggi getting killed, they are mad at him because he's telling everyone what his actual motivation is.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11866
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Dec 07, 2018 8:25 am

Actually, Lauston, the main reason people starve in Africa is due to corruption in government in their own country. The West has less power there than we like to think. But starvation is still getting less, decade by decade. I agree it is taking longer than it should to reduce. I do not know how to fix this, since we cannot just send James Bond into Africa to assassinate all the guilty parties.

The golden rice thing is a tragedy caused by human stupidity and pride. Pride because those who opposed it refuse to change their minds even though it is now obvious they were wrong. This stupidity and pride is both among westerners and governments where vitamin A deficiency is a big problem.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8867
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Fri Dec 07, 2018 4:40 pm

Having had a lifelong career working peripherally with multinational food commodity companies, food shortages are a myth. Food surpluses are their biggest problem in the demand side of the market. That's why food is often freely donated to food aid agencies; to reduce surpluses and to keep prices up. Starvation is almost always a result of local corruption and ethnic warfare. It's naive to think these massive companies don't have an influence over supply and demand.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15564
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Dec 07, 2018 4:41 pm

landrew wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:16 pm
But my point is not to have a citation war about whether it was consensus or not. .
There was not consensus.
landrew wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:16 pm
I wish to make the point that climate predictions are notoriously inaccurate, or at least they have been. .
Well....there ya go. Inaccurate when there is NO CONSENSUS, and 40 years later when there IS CONSENSUS...what used to be true is no longer relevant.
landrew wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:16 pm
That's what gives me little faith in climate predictions being made nowadays, at least the more calamitous ones.
There is no consensus on the more calamtious ones. Most of the IPCC data is "characterized" very formily as to how likely such a result is and many predictions are totally conditioned on various stated givens so that entities can choose their own assumptions and then see the best estimated outcome.
landrew wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:16 pm
I don't doubt that climate change is a serious problem for our planet, but I choose neither to be a denialist or an alarmist. I try to be a realist. Call it an opinion seasoned by age.
........and what is your suggestion regarding a serious problem facing our planet that so far the people on this planet is only making the worst outcome more likely and doing the opposite of what is needed to stop those problems?

How can one even be too alarmist given the current situation?......."Thrown off a high building, no reason to worry until passing the third floor......" I say: the time to raise alarms is when we step out onto the roof.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8867
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Fri Dec 07, 2018 4:48 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 4:41 pm
landrew wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:16 pm
But my point is not to have a citation war about whether it was consensus or not. .
landrew wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:16 pm
I don't doubt that climate change is a serious problem for our planet, but I choose neither to be a denialist or an alarmist. I try to be a realist. Call it an opinion seasoned by age.
........and what is your suggestion regarding a serious problem facing our planet that so far the people on this planet is only making the worst outcome more likely and doing the opposite of what is needed to stop those problems?

How can one even be too alarmist given the current situation?......."Thrown off a high building, no reason to worry until passing the third floor......" I say: the time to raise alarms is when we step out onto the roof.
We've revisited this point many times, so let's circle it one more time. You say the crisis is so bad that we can never be too alarmist, so let's freak out. Of course, I advocate a more calm and realistic approach. I don't like to repeat myself too many times, but I don't think it's wise to panic.

As I said, alarmism is counterproductive to the cause, and gives the denialists plenty of fodder with which to dismiss climate change. In fact it makes us look foolish, like silly ninnies always overstating the problem. How many more times do we need to cover the same ground?
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15564
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Dec 07, 2018 5:45 pm

landrew......ha, ha...…...no.....I never said that and as I have said many times the only limitation for saying such things would be knowledge and imagination. I DO SAY: 100 mm DEAD BY 2030 is not Alarmist. …...or, being serious, it does have that feel to me. Year 2100 would be almost a sure bet?

I DO SAY: "We are all gonna die....." ////Its open ended not giving a year, and it is based on what is evidence today: all the bad inputs increasing with all the good inputs being too little too late on exponential scales.

The outcome of any conditioned statement changes when you change the assumptions. A definitional reality Lance can't get. It must be all the grass he eats.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?