100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12999
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 5:58 pm

We are all going to die, certainly, but not due to global warming.

Such statements are alarmist. As I have said before, humans are the most adaptable mammals, and can adapt to almost any situation. Global warming is a major problem, but not a human catastrophe. Again, listen to the people of Darwin laughing at you. They already experience the worst that most nations will ever feel, and they are perfectly well set up to live with it.

That being said, humanity does have a strong and powerful need to mitigate global warming as best we can, as well as learning to live with what is now inevitable. But alarmism is not helpful. Cool heads and clear thinking is required.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10948
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Fri Dec 07, 2018 6:05 pm

We often hear about how many people die in a flu epidemic. Such numbers are often inflated, because there's usually more than one cause contributing to a death. For how many of them was having the flu the last straw? How many had poor health from other reasons beforehand? Such things are alarmist, whether intentionally so or not. It's just a question of trying to properly interpret statistics.

"Figures don't lie, but liars figure."
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19071
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Dec 07, 2018 6:11 pm

Thats true. Liars also often don't figure at all...…...they just lie. "I don't believe in Global Warming......it was cold here last night." as said by Our Presnedent.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian 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: 3910
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 6:34 pm

landrew wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 6:05 pm
We often hear about how many people die in a flu epidemic. Such numbers are often inflated, because there's usually more than one cause contributing to a death. For how many of them was having the flu the last straw? How many had poor health from other reasons beforehand? Such things are alarmist, whether intentionally so or not. It's just a question of trying to properly interpret statistics.

"Figures don't lie, but liars figure."
Better for them to die and decrease the surplus population. Can't have all those weak people lying around. This world could use a good epidemic right about now.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10948
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Fri Dec 07, 2018 6:53 pm

Lausten wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 6:34 pm
landrew wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 6:05 pm
We often hear about how many people die in a flu epidemic. Such numbers are often inflated, because there's usually more than one cause contributing to a death. For how many of them was having the flu the last straw? How many had poor health from other reasons beforehand? Such things are alarmist, whether intentionally so or not. It's just a question of trying to properly interpret statistics.

"Figures don't lie, but liars figure."
Better for them to die and decrease the surplus population. Can't have all those weak people lying around. This world could use a good epidemic right about now.
Eugenics 101.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
robinson
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1053
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:55 am
Custom Title: Sometimes 0 is real cool hand

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by robinson » Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:26 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:05 pm
On this basis, knowing about past trends in doomsday predictions, I can confidently predict that this one, also, will be wrong.
I would bet on your prediction to come true.
"If you tell people the truth, make them laugh. Otherwise they will kill you"
-- Oscar Wilde

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10948
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:36 pm

robinson wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:26 pm
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:05 pm
On this basis, knowing about past trends in doomsday predictions, I can confidently predict that this one, also, will be wrong.
I would bet on your prediction to come true.
Betting on the rat-tails of the bell curve is usually a losing proposition. I like to place my bets near the fat middle of the curve. The odds are better and so is the payoff.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3910
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 8:02 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
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.
I'm glad you are not in charge. According to your logic, we should never have tried to figure out what causes earthquakes, since none of them ever wiped out the entire human race. We should never have made a correlation with hand washing by doctors and survival rates, since there was no evidence of what hand washing was actually doing. We should have kept building up more arms and having bigger wars since the first two world wars didn't REALLY involve the whole world and left some of Europe NOT looking like a moonscape. That whole nuclear arms treaty, totally unnecessary. Vaccines, what's the point? In fact, why get out of bed at all? Everything seems to get along just fine either way. Order food from Amazon.com and have it shipped in too much plastic. Somehow it gets hauled away so I don't see it, why should I care?

You are comparing guys on a street corner with "The end is near" sandwich signs to people who actually solve real problems so you can watch Netflix all day.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19071
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Dec 07, 2018 8:23 pm

Second thought: much like my criticism of shading the earth but not curtailing use of fossil carbon: all it does is allow acidification to continue until it does something drastic on its own. The OP link was to WHO, so they concentrate on Health but curing all ills and making warm weather crops and everyone having air conditioning WOULD ONLY MAKE ALL THE PROBLEMS WORSE.

Ain't that a bitch?...……..course, the immediate large number deaths from AGW will be like food shortages: more a direct cause from political decisions rather than by the climate itself although the dividing line will be hard and debateable. Few accept the 2-3 million dead in Iraq/Syria as being caused by AGW: extended drought with farmers losing their source of living so they move to the cities and become revolting. its only going to happen more...…..

……………………….its a challenge...……………..and we haven't even suited up.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian 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
True Skeptic
Posts: 10948
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Fri Dec 07, 2018 8:37 pm

Lausten wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 8:02 pm
Lance Kennedy wrote:
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.
I'm glad you are not in charge. According to your logic, we should never have tried to figure out what causes earthquakes, since none of them ever wiped out the entire human race. We should never have made a correlation with hand washing by doctors and survival rates, since there was no evidence of what hand washing was actually doing. We should have kept building up more arms and having bigger wars since the first two world wars didn't REALLY involve the whole world and left some of Europe NOT looking like a moonscape. That whole nuclear arms treaty, totally unnecessary. Vaccines, what's the point? In fact, why get out of bed at all? Everything seems to get along just fine either way. Order food from Amazon.com and have it shipped in too much plastic. Somehow it gets hauled away so I don't see it, why should I care?

You are comparing guys on a street corner with "The end is near" sandwich signs to people who actually solve real problems so you can watch Netflix all day.
I hope the people in charge are not alarmists; it's not a leadership skill. A leader who tells whoppers to motivate people won't be a leader for long. Level-headed people tend to get better results.

If you want to argue about an issue and then disagree about whether it's alarmist or not, that's a different issue. I'm talking about actually over-stating a situation, which subsequently proves to be false. The end doesn't justify the means in my opinion. Credibility is eroded, and your usefulness to the cause is diminished.

The problem with being highly polarized is that it tends to make moderates look more extreme than they are. The only way to solve the real problems is to get down to business and stop being hysterical. It just doesn't help.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12999
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 8:44 pm

Lauston

Your last post was pure idiocy, and pure straw man. You ascribe to me a bunch of opinions I have never expressed. Get real !

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3910
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 9:45 pm

landrew wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 8:37 pm

If you want to argue about an issue and then disagree about whether it's alarmist or not, that's a different issue. I'm talking about actually over-stating a situation, which subsequently proves to be false. The end doesn't justify the means in my opinion. Credibility is eroded, and your usefulness to the cause is diminished.

The problem with being highly polarized is that it tends to make moderates look more extreme than they are. The only way to solve the real problems is to get down to business and stop being hysterical. It just doesn't help.
That's exactly what I've been doing, both of you. If you think we are not way past the time that we should have done something about global warming, then you are in denial. If you think we are not already experiencing economically measurable harm from climate change then you don't know what those words mean. This is a crisis on the scale of mutually assured destruction, global famine and any pandemic that we have averted due to massive mobilization of resources. But go ahead, watch the latest version of pituitary retards competing against each other on prime time TV and go back to bed, your government is in control.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12999
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 10:03 pm

Lauston

How about reading our posts BEFORE you attack them.

We all know that global warming is a major problem, and it is important to both mitigate it and adapt to it. Landrew and I have both said so.

But we do not like alarmist bulldust. This is something Bobbo keeps posting and you too, apparently. Get real and go on the data that comes from the most sensible scientists such as those in the IPCC.

There are two kinds of global warming horse manure. One shown by the idiot Trump and the other shown by Lauston and Bobbo.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10948
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:33 pm

Lausten wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:45 pm
landrew wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 8:37 pm

If you want to argue about an issue and then disagree about whether it's alarmist or not, that's a different issue. I'm talking about actually over-stating a situation, which subsequently proves to be false. The end doesn't justify the means in my opinion. Credibility is eroded, and your usefulness to the cause is diminished.

The problem with being highly polarized is that it tends to make moderates look more extreme than they are. The only way to solve the real problems is to get down to business and stop being hysterical. It just doesn't help.
That's exactly what I've been doing, both of you. If you think we are not way past the time that we should have done something about global warming, then you are in denial. If you think we are not already experiencing economically measurable harm from climate change then you don't know what those words mean. This is a crisis on the scale of mutually assured destruction, global famine and any pandemic that we have averted due to massive mobilization of resources. But go ahead, watch the latest version of pituitary retards competing against each other on prime time TV and go back to bed, your government is in control.
No one is saying we have done enough, or doing enough, or that the situation isn't a crisis. That's not the point; it's a real crisis. But the best way to tackle the problem is not to make alarmist claims, and carry on hysterically. That's the point we were making when you entered the discussion, so it's a bit confusing where your problem lies. If you think a lack of hysteria denotes denialism, I invite you to go back and read it again.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3910
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lausten » Sat Dec 08, 2018 12:12 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:03 pm
Lauston

How about reading our posts BEFORE you attack them.

We all know that global warming is a major problem, and it is important to both mitigate it and adapt to it. Landrew and I have both said so.

But we do not like alarmist bulldust. This is something Bobbo keeps posting and you too, apparently. Get real and go on the data that comes from the most sensible scientists such as those in the IPCC.

There are two kinds of global warming horse manure. One shown by the idiot Trump and the other shown by Lauston and Bobbo.
You've done nothing but make vague comments about alarmism. You have not backed that up with why this report is out of line with IPCC data or how it makes predictions that are inaccurate. You mentioned some technology which is far from guaranteed and only deals with the symptoms, not the problem. What am I supposed to think?
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12999
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 » Sat Dec 08, 2018 12:27 am

What you are supposed to do, Lauston, is THINK !

That, and read our posts properly.

My own views of the future are based, as I have said many times, on long term trends. Humans have recognized many problems and solved them. For example, the ancient Hittites (bronze age) were running out of copper and tin to make bronze. Instead of their society collapsing, they invented iron. The ancient Persians could not feed their people on the fertile but very dry plains. So they built underground canals (called qanots) from the mountains where rain fell to carry irrigation water to the plains.

More recently, we solved the 'Silent Spring' problem by inventing low toxicity and biodegradable pesticides. We solved the ozone layer destruction by finding alternatives to CFCs. We solved population growth famine by increasing food production per acre. The only thing we seem unable to solve is moronic politicians.

Global warming is being tackled. It is still early days, but the impetus is on. China is the worst greenhouse gas emitter, and is carrying out a massive move to renewables and to nuclear power. Even the USA under its moronic president is emitting less, mainly due to more natural gas being used. But it is a start.

Humans will mitigate global warming. Probably not as well as we should, and I expect warming to well exceed the 1.5 Celsius asked by the Paris Accord. But, just as the people of Darwin live with extreme hot temperatures, so can the rest of us. To suggest 100 million killed by global warming in the near future is ludicrous.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10948
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Sat Dec 08, 2018 1:11 am

Not everyone thinks you need to paint the most dire scenario to get the proper results:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... 98902bc233
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3910
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lausten » Sat Dec 08, 2018 1:36 am

landrew wrote:
Sat Dec 08, 2018 1:11 am
Not everyone thinks you need to paint the most dire scenario to get the proper results:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... 98902bc233
“If this study is proved correct, it wouldn’t change our best guess of what the future would look like under climate change — but it would make the worst-case scenario slightly less catastrophic,” Sanderson said.

Gee, that's sounds great!
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3910
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lausten » Sat Dec 08, 2018 1:38 am

Lance, your comparisons are jokes. Hittites? Really? And you just keep making vague references to how technology will save us, then tell me I'm not reading you carefully enough. Read yourself.

How is it that government studies uncovered the problems with CFCs and funded research in farming, the two problems you say were solved, yet the problem is morons in the government?
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12999
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 » Sat Dec 08, 2018 4:52 am

In this case, a big problem is one particular moron in government. Guess who.

The Hittites etc are there to simply illustrate the point that humans are adaptable and innovative. Problems are there to be solved. Try to see the point and not sidetrack away from the point I am making.

On global warming, things are already under way. We are already applying new technologies and new systems to mitigate the problem. This is not just me speculating. Billions of dollars are being spent developing new techniques to reduce the level of warming. It will not take a single solution, but numerous techniques, and many are already being applied.

Saying stupid things like 100 million deaths from global warming by 2030 is not helping. It is just sidetracking us away from what is important. It is also false. It is just another in a long list of doomsday prophecies that do not come about. Anyone who takes such crap seriously is setting himself up to be demonstrated to be a fool.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10948
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Sat Dec 08, 2018 5:46 pm

"Not helping" is the operative phrase in what Lance said. Predicting 100 million deaths from climate change by 2030 doesn't help anything. It's like shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater to get people to clear out faster. No one is quibbling that 100 million will die by then, but we have no way of knowing whether climate change would be a direct or indirect cause. It looks like alarmism to some of us, and it's not helping the cause.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19071
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Dec 08, 2018 7:40 pm

When the movie theater is ON FIRE, you don't calmly talk about fire safety.

Getting people to talk/think about people dying from global warming is closer to fire safety than it is to yelling FIRE.

Anyone who thinks 100MM dead is Alarmist==============================>doesn't see the FIRE.

……………..silly Hoomans.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian 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
True Skeptic
Posts: 10948
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Sat Dec 08, 2018 8:28 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sat Dec 08, 2018 7:40 pm
When the movie theater is ON FIRE, you don't calmly talk about fire safety.

Getting people to talk/think about people dying from global warming is closer to fire safety than it is to yelling FIRE.

Anyone who thinks 100MM dead is Alarmist==============================>doesn't see the FIRE.

……………..silly Hoomans.
Yes you do remain calm, even if the theater is on fire, which in my example, it is not.
You'll get to the solution much sooner using the non-hysterical approach.
I'll argue in favor of calmness over hysteria all day long.
How long do you want to keep this impasse going?
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3910
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lausten » Sat Dec 08, 2018 9:35 pm

Oh those poor Darwinians, now do they survive?

https://northernterritory.com/darwin-an ... lmer-falls
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3910
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lausten » Sat Dec 08, 2018 9:39 pm

landrew wrote:
Sat Dec 08, 2018 5:46 pm
" but we have no way of knowing whether climate change would be a direct or indirect cause. It looks like alarmism to some of us, and it's not helping the cause.
And we've reached that point in every forum where the losing side says we can't know anything. How they know we can't know when we can't know, well, we don't know. Nothing is knowable, therefore don't be alarmed. Don't think at all. Don't say anything because you can't know anything. That's the one thing to know.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12999
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 » Sat Dec 08, 2018 10:21 pm

Lauston

When something is not known, it is rank dishonesty to push that view and claim it is correct.

But it is very clear to me, and I suspect, to the great majority of climate scientists, that global warming is seriously unlikely to kill 100 million by 2030. For the same reason that people in Darwin survive. Because they are not stupid and they adapt to the conditions around them.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10948
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Sat Dec 08, 2018 10:28 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sat Dec 08, 2018 10:21 pm
Lauston

When something is not known, it is rank dishonesty to push that view and claim it is correct.

But it is very clear to me, and I suspect, to the great majority of climate scientists, that global warming is seriously unlikely to kill 100 million by 2030. For the same reason that people in Darwin survive. Because they are not stupid and they adapt to the conditions around them.
It was disingenuous to say the least.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19071
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Dec 08, 2018 10:46 pm

landrew wrote:
Sat Dec 08, 2018 8:28 pm
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sat Dec 08, 2018 7:40 pm
When the movie theater is ON FIRE, you don't calmly talk about fire safety.

Getting people to talk/think about people dying from global warming is closer to fire safety than it is to yelling FIRE.

Anyone who thinks 100MM dead is Alarmist==============================>doesn't see the FIRE.

……………..silly Hoomans.
Yes you do remain calm, even if the theater is on fire, which in my example, it is not.
You'll get to the solution much sooner using the non-hysterical approach.
I'll argue in favor of calmness over hysteria all day long.
How long do you want to keep this impasse going?
We are not at impasse when you fail to connect to the SUBJECT: Is yelling Fire in a theater on fire Alarmist or not?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian 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: 12999
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 » Sat Dec 08, 2018 10:50 pm

Yes it is.
The correct approach is to calmly, though loudly, inform everyone that there is a problem, and ask them to take the required action in a calm and orderly fashion. Panic kills.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10948
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Sat Dec 08, 2018 11:46 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sat Dec 08, 2018 10:46 pm
landrew wrote:
Sat Dec 08, 2018 8:28 pm
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sat Dec 08, 2018 7:40 pm
When the movie theater is ON FIRE, you don't calmly talk about fire safety.

Getting people to talk/think about people dying from global warming is closer to fire safety than it is to yelling FIRE.

Anyone who thinks 100MM dead is Alarmist==============================>doesn't see the FIRE.

……………..silly Hoomans.
Yes you do remain calm, even if the theater is on fire, which in my example, it is not.
You'll get to the solution much sooner using the non-hysterical approach.
I'll argue in favor of calmness over hysteria all day long.
How long do you want to keep this impasse going?
We are not at impasse when you fail to connect to the SUBJECT: Is yelling Fire in a theater on fire Alarmist or not?
It was my example, which you are now taking out of context. You are assuming that the theater is actually on fire, which I wasn't. The analogy was for someone to yell fire to get people to panic for some ulterior motive.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3910
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lausten » Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:03 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sat Dec 08, 2018 10:21 pm

But it is very clear to me, and I suspect, to the great majority of climate scientists, that global warming is seriously unlikely to kill 100 million by 2030.
You suspect? Suspect why? Just as I suspected, you're just making up what scientists think. You aren't challenging their data or methodology, clearly published in the link. You read the headline and reacted.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12999
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 » Sun Dec 09, 2018 7:51 am

The link Lauston, gives no evidence, no data. Just some silly assertions. There is no statement about which, if any scientists believe the nonsense. I read several general science journals regularly, and I keep familiar with the major views on global warming, and other areas. Nothing I have read supports this utterly ludicrous bulldust.

Obviously extreme weather does kill people. A hurricane, a heat wave, a cold snap, a blizzard, or even a dust storm can kill. Some of these may be influenced by global warming. Some not. But merely living in warmer conditions is not lethal. Even the occasional heat wave should not be lethal. It just requires some rather common sense precautions. A bit like putting on more clothes when cold. So take proper measures when things are very hot. Have water available to avoid dehydration. Keep out of the sun. Stay in an air conditioned place if possible at times of maximum high temperature. Etc. I have spent time in places where mid day temperatures were in the region of 45 Celsius (113 F ). Not nice, but manageable if you are not stupid.

There are places in the world today where temperatures reach over 50 Celsius and the local people cope. The idea that a gradual increase of maybe 1 Celsius more, as an average, which is all we might expect by 2030, will kill 100 million people, is beyond stupid.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3910
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lausten » Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:47 pm

Climate change is not just about heat waves. The people have died in hurricanes and fires this year are a result of it

This is just health related deaths
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-shee ... and-health
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10948
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Sun Dec 09, 2018 4:28 pm

No one is denying that the problem is serious, and possibly even dire, but the major disagreement is how to react. If I can speak for Lance, we both seem to agree that the best approach to any situation, no matter how serious is to remain calm, factual and focused on the true facts, as best we know them.

Apologies if I have this wrong, but the other side seems to be saying it's OK to take the less calm (what I call the more hysterical) approach. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that it's useful to overstate the facts, as an means to an end.

I'm not sure how we can proceed without repeating ourselves over and over. Respectfully, can I ask that we agree to disagree at this point?
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12999
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 » Sun Dec 09, 2018 7:46 pm

Lausten wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:47 pm
Climate change is not just about heat waves. The people have died in hurricanes and fires this year are a result of it

This is just health related deaths
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-shee ... and-health
Lauston

Hurricanes and fires kill hundreds of people, not 100 million. Duh !

Your reference talks of malnutrition, and disease. Again, that is the nowcast fallacy. Researchers are already working on warm climate crops. But plenty already exist. Breadfruit alone has the potential to feed all people living in warm and reasonably wet environments. Arid environments will shrink, not expand since overall climate change will increase precipitation.

As far as disease is concerned, the long term trend is to reduction. The idea that tropical diseases will take over is nonsense because temperature is only one factor among many. Malaria, for example, is widely touted as increasing. But that is bulldust. Malaria has been getting less for centuries. It may surprise you, and others who push this bull shite, to know that malaria used to be common in northern Europe and in North America during the Little Ice Age. Shakespeare referred to it as the ague. It was virtually eliminated from those areas by getting rid of the mosquito carriers. Such things are continuing for a wide range of diseases to this day. Warmer temperatures will not increase disease because, like the ague, we are learning to eliminate them.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10948
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Sun Dec 09, 2018 8:23 pm

If the last 40 years have shown us anything, we truly suck at predicting the future. Most people who have studied the problem agree that climate change is a serious problem in our future. There will always be both denialists and alarmists in every situation, and particularly regarding climate change, widely the evidence is widely interpreted from one side of the spectrum to the other. What should be a cooperative effort focused on science-based solutions, has been hijacked into a tribal political battlefield, which does nothing to promote consensus; in fact it creates more divisiveness. The last thing we need. It's like the ship going down while everyone squabbles about the lifeboats. We need to come together in common cause; not battling each other in a perpetually unwinnable war. Forget the denialists and the alarmists; stop feeding them because they are dragging the rest of us down.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19071
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Dec 09, 2018 8:27 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sat Dec 08, 2018 10:50 pm
Yes it is.
The correct approach is to calmly, though loudly, inform everyone that there is a problem, and ask them to take the required action in a calm and orderly fashion. Panic kills.
bwhahahahahah: the fine yet transparent art of the quibble. The difference between yelling and loudly? ………………….Just look at yourself. Now: is it Alarmist to do either in said on fire Theater?...……………...and yes...…….the context is that the Earth is On Fire.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian 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
True Skeptic
Posts: 10948
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Sun Dec 09, 2018 8:51 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 8:27 pm
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sat Dec 08, 2018 10:50 pm
Yes it is.
The correct approach is to calmly, though loudly, inform everyone that there is a problem, and ask them to take the required action in a calm and orderly fashion. Panic kills.
bwhahahahahah: the fine yet transparent art of the quibble. The difference between yelling and loudly? ………………….Just look at yourself. Now: is it Alarmist to do either in said on fire Theater?...……………...and yes...…….the context is that the Earth is On Fire.
You're saying it's on fire because it's your opinion, and you want to inspire others to instant action. For others, it's not on fire.
No one has full command of all the facts regarding climate change.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12999
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 » Sun Dec 09, 2018 9:50 pm

Bobbo

I am saying that the proper response to a problem is to remain calm, and use your brain, rather than panic and go off the rails. When communicating with others, stick to what we know is real. You just destroy your own credibility when you exaggerate.

On predicting the future.
There are people who have done this very well. But what we suck at is predicting disaster. They just do not seem to happen on cue. There are hundreds of such predictions and what they ALL have in common is that they all proved wrong.

Certainly there are problems and global climate change is a serious problem. But it is not a disaster and predicting global warming disaster will simply make you one more person to make a false disaster prediction.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19071
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Dec 09, 2018 10:51 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 9:50 pm
Bobbo

I am saying that the proper response to a problem is to remain calm, and use your brain, rather than panic and go off the rails.
Thats been said and agreed to by everyone about FIVE TIMES NOW. Why do you make it SIX? ……………..and why don't you respond to THE SUBJECT which is whether or not 100MM dead by 2030 is Alarmist or not?

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 9:50 pm
Bobbo
When communicating with others, stick to what we know is real. .
Totally inept concept when dealing with climate effect predictions. What is "real" in such an undertaking? The notion that science will always provide a last minute solution...…….or that Hoomans are guaranteed to be on Earth for more than 300K years?...……………..What exactly?????
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 9:50 pm
You just destroy your own credibility when you exaggerate.
Whats real is the Link. Just one source from many. How am I exaggerating when I just report what others are saying?
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 9:50 pm

On predicting the future.
There are people who have done this very well. But what we suck at is predicting disaster. They just do not seem to happen on cue. There are hundreds of such predictions and what they ALL have in common is that they all proved wrong.
This all comes down to the degree of specificity you require. Its been predicted for 40 years now that climate will warm...…..and thats exactly what has happened and will continue to happen. We may be well past the time when Alarms will make any difference. What do you do in a theater when you loudly inform everyone there is a fire and no one moves?
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 9:50 pm
ALL have in common is that they all proved wrong..
All? My.....thats quite the exaggerated claim...……………….what are your numbers?

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 9:50 pm
Certainly there are problems and global climate change is a serious problem. But it is not a disaster ........
I think it is. WE ARE RIGHT NOW IN A DISASTER. The lag times and multiple cascade/feedback events and disruptions necessary to do anything about it are simply beyond the pale. The loud talk was 20 years ago..........the fire is building up just behind the curtain..........how long you gonna wait?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian 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?