100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
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 » Tue Dec 25, 2018 11:44 pm

significant: 1. Important in effect or meaning, 2. Fairly large

NO==>on both counts.

If Plan A will NOT ACHIEVE YOUR GOAL, and other Plans will: any intelligent person will stop wasting time on Plan A. Not quadruple down as YOU do.

Shows no common sense at all. Remember: if you want to plant trees: go ahead. It doesn't work, I like trees. Just don't think you are actually ADDRESSING THE ISSUE. ........ as the issue requires exponential efforts elsewhere.

WAR.........its never pleasant and planting and picking poppies IS much more enjoyable. Thats the nature of WAR.
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
Anomaly
Poster
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:11 pm

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Anomaly » Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:08 am

:frown:
landrew wrote:
Mon Dec 24, 2018 3:47 am
You are living in a weird fantasy world. Your numbers are changing all the time, getting more and more unrealistically inflated. Those you call "naysayers" are simply people with a better grasp on reality. "If only" everyone shared your pipe dream, the world would be all fixed, would it?
Dream on, the rest of us want to focus on reality.

I have no idea about how factual any of the numbers Lance presents are. But I am not sure he is out of touch with reality. The concept, the idea, Lance presents is a fairly common one.

Statement from Scientist Signatories

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will issue a new report soon on the impacts of 1.5°C of global warming. Limiting average temperature rise to 1.5°C requires both drastic reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and removing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. While high-tech carbon dioxide removal solutions are under development, the “natural technology” of forests is currently the only proven means of removing and storing atmospheric CO2 at a scale that can meaningfully contribute to achieving carbon balance.

.....

Signatories:

1. Paulo Artaxo, Physics Department, University of São Paulo

2. Gregory Asner, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Science and US National Academy of Sciences

3. Mercedes Bustamante, Ecology Department, University of Brasilia and Brazilian Academy of Sciences

4. Stephen Carpenter, Center for Limnology, University of Wisconsin-Madison

5. Philippe Ciais, Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, Centre d’Etudes Orme des Merisiers

6. James Clark, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University

7. Michael Coe, Woods Hole Research Center

8. Gretchen C. Daily, Department of Biology and Woods Institute, Stanford University and US National Academy of Sciences

9. Eric Davidson, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science and President of the American Geophysical Union

10. Ruth S. DeFries, Department of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology, Columbia University and US National Academy of Sciences

11. Karlheinz Erb, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU)

12. Nina Fedoroff, Department of Biology, Penn State University

13. David R. Foster, Harvard University

14. James N. Galloway, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

15. Holly Gibbs, Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment, University of Wisconsin-Madison

16. Giacomo Grassi

17. Matthew C. Hansen, Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland

18. George Homberger, Vanderbilt Institute for Energy and Environment

19. Richard Houghton, Woods Hole Research Center

20. Jo House, Cabot Institute for the Environment and Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol.

21. Robert Howarth, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University

22. Daniel Janzen, Department of Biology, University of Pennsylvania and US National Academy of Sciences

23. Carlos Joly, Institute of Biology, University of Campinas

24. Werner Kurz, Canada

25. William F. Laurance, College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University

26. Deborah Lawrence, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

27. Katharine Mach, Stanford University Earth System Science

28. Jose Marengo, National Centre for Monitoring and Early Warning and Natural Disasters (CEMADEN, Brazil)

29. William R. Moomaw, Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University and Board Chair, Woods Hole Research Center

30. Jerry Melillo, Marine Biological Laboratory, University of Chicago

31. Carlos Nobre, Institute of Advanced Studies, University of São Paulo and US Academy of Sciences

32. Fabio Scarano, Institute of Biology, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, and Brazilian Foundation for Sustainable Development (FBDS)

33. Herman H. Shugart, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

34. Pete Smith, FRS, FRSE, University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom

35. Britaldo Soares Filho, Institute of Geosciences, Federal University of Minas Gerais

36. John W. Terborgh, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University

37. G. David Tilman, College of Biological Sciences, University of Minnesota

38. Adalberto Luis Val, Brazilian National Institute for Research of the Amazon (INPA)

39. Louis Verchot, International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT)

40. Richard Waring, Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University
http://www.climateandlandusealliance.or ... statement/


Although I agree with the concept, I believe we will do little to change trajectory. My view of the future is gloom and doom. I like Lance`s view better than mine.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12934
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 26, 2018 12:12 am

Thank you anomaly.

I am afraid that Bobbo and landrew are hung up on their own unsupported opinions and are unconvinced by the science.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
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 » Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:29 am

Ha, ha...........way to go lance. Don't understand what Anomaly posted at all.

And welcome Anomaly. I look forward to your disagreement/nuance/lINKS. Links: what Lance really should take from your post....................along with: "meaningfully contribute"....sad, the signatories are so OBVIOUSLY BIASED. "...the only proven technology....." What the Frick????? Lots of "proven tech" "in the laboratory" that just is more costly than doing nothing.

Bailing on the Titanic.......yes.....the ship will still go down two minutes later. Was it a meaningfull contribution.....or just giving the passengers something to do?
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: 12934
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 26, 2018 1:18 am

It is the only cost effective technology. The words, proven technology, refer to the fact that everything else is inadequate. Landrew tried to tell me that growing corn puts so much carbon in the soil that this is better than forests. I looked up carbon credits given for this. Turns out that they pay out for 0.4 of a tonne per acre. Not up to the 50 tonnes per acre from forests

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
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 » Wed Dec 26, 2018 1:45 am

Lance: how is it "effective" if it can't get the job done?===> What branch of Polish Accounting is used??
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: 12934
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 26, 2018 2:03 am

Bobbo

I have told you, repeatedly, that many measures are needed. No single measure is sufficient. But together, the job can get done. Planting trees is one of those measures. If an extra 10% of natural forest is established, that is 50 billion tonnes of carbon taken out of the atmosphere. If we had a magic wand and could do it instantly, that would reduce the current 400 ppm of CO2 down fo 300 ppm, which would negate the current global warming.

Of course, I do not have such a magic wand, and that reduction would take 50 years. Sadly. But even over 50 years, it is a very useful contribution.

We have many ways of reducing carbon emissions, but tree growth is the only cost effective method of actually removing carbon from the atmosphere.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
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 » Wed Dec 26, 2018 2:47 am

Polish Accounting.

ITS OBVIOUS: we don't have ANY solution, or combo if you refuse not to be stupidly vague on the issue, AND WE WON'T, when 10% measures THAT CANNOT EVEN BE DONE, are offered as any part of a solution.

Obviously: even though a yacht owner, youve never hit a reef out on the lonely unforgiving ocean. aka: when actually seeing you are up against it: you won't employ partial measures as "helping" towards the solution. You will ONLY OPT for the solution.....or get out the life raft and salute Lonely Looking Sky on her way down.
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: 12934
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 26, 2018 4:10 am

Actually the 10% solution could well be done. On a global average, that is only 3% of total land area converted to forest, and that would be the poorest agricultural land at that. It just takes the political will.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
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 » Wed Dec 26, 2018 4:29 am

"It could be done............." ///// .................but we didn't.
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: 10846
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:28 pm

If we spent a fraction of the billions we'd spend on wacky sequestration schemes, on alternate energy systems, we could deal with carbon at the source instead of forever trying to clean up after carbon emissions. Electric vehicles have made significant technological gains in recent years becoming much more efficient and practical. This despite resistance from powerful interests vested in carbon-based energy production.

Of course it's no solution to convert to electric vehicles if the power to run them is still produced by burning fossil fuels. Many challenges remain; biofuels are carbon-neutral, hydrogen is carbon-free but they are going to remain more expensive than petroleum-based fuels for as long as massive oil and gas reserves remain. Wind and solar will help, but they remain a small portion of the total due to cost. Nuclear power is stalled due to public concerns for safety.

If I had a crystal ball, I may be inclined to think we will eventually wean ourselves off our dependence on fossil fuels as technology advances. All that's missing is enough public commitment, and a higher level of scientific literacy. The sooner we abandon the tribal political battle and begin to work together, the sooner we'll achieve a tolerable way of dealing with climate change.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23652
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Dec 26, 2018 8:50 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sat Sep 15, 2018 6:24 pm
Hey!==a nice "firm" prediction we all should be alive to see? I was gonna let it go as just one more dire prediction, but its been reaffirmed 3 times on tv in the last 24 hours. Right now....Jerry Brown leading a Climate Conference showing the world the USA is not going to follow Trumps lead.

What got me really going was an interview with a UN scientist who commented that the last time the co2 ppm got to 400, the North Pole had no ice. When it got to 750 ppm, there was no ice at the South Pole. ………..and...……..sea level rose 100 Meters. He noted the ppm is over 400 NOW....so absent getting back below 400 means the Pole is going to melt....just as it is. Then he said it is predicted ppm by 2100 would be 1000....well above the 750 and I had not heard that high figure before, so I googled the UN Scientist's (never caught his name....I think it was on RT or Russian TV) figure for credibility and could not find any reference above about 800 ppm for the end of this Century...so I kinda wrote the guy off. Then.....a show on shrinking ice in Greenland noted that while the Whole Earth average was predicted to go up to a 6 or 7 degree rise....the temps were rising faster at the North Pole than anywhere else on earth and would most likely hit 8-9 or even 10 degrees increase. Yep...so many innocent ways to miscommunicate about AGW.

Contra: ((but not really)) just saw another show on making hydrocarbon fuel out of atmospheric co2. There is a solution right there: stop digging up fossil fuel with all the pollution that causes ((no report yet on the deluge of toxic coal ash sludge spread all over the Carolinas from Tropical Storm Florence....will it get permanently not reported?)) and make relatively clean and neutral recycled co2. The tech has been proven and only needs to be scaled up. About 10,000 such chemical plants would do it. Said fuel could be burned...but also will have to be sequested to get the ppm down. The plans to raise the albedo of Earth are not favored by me. Better to spend any of that money on the captured co2 technology BECAUSE....of all the other problems increased co2 causes. Making the earth cooler so fossil fuel can still be burned is money not spent the best way.

Heh, heh, …..my gut tells me "we are still too late" with the VERY BEST CASE with massive funding of redemial action...Millions/Billions are still going to unnecessarily die. Its how the curves go...……………

Short one page read.
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/20 ... ge-by-2030
Image
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
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 » Wed Dec 26, 2018 10:52 pm

Obama really didn't do anything to notice. He treated AGW and its threat about the same as Wall Street Fraud? Heh, heh: Wall Street Fraud cycles about every 8 years which is why we are looking at it again with the worst December in stock history (?==close enough). AGW is "new" and we are watching "not" a cycle but an environmental collapse: for hooman beings. All the other species on Earth will rejoice.
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: 12934
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 27, 2018 1:56 am

You cannot give up on crackpot ideas, can you Bobbo ?
The United Nations predicts the human population by 2100 will reach 10 billion plus or minus a few billion. AGW will not change that. The biggest threat to the size of the global human population right now is the long term trend fo reducing fertility. I suspect that, between 2100 and 2200, the population will fall to a lot less than 10 billion, but climate change will not be a factor in that fall.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
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 » Thu Dec 27, 2018 2:47 am

OK Lance: how can AGW be "present" and not be a factor? Huh??? Everything present is a factor...always a question of degree.

Ironic you would bring up crackpot.
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: 3901
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 27, 2018 3:49 am

landrew wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:28 pm
All that's missing is enough public commitment, and a higher level of scientific literacy. The sooner we abandon the tribal political battle and begin to work together, the sooner we'll achieve a tolerable way of dealing with climate change.
Agreed
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12934
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 27, 2018 4:02 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 2:47 am
OK Lance: how can AGW be "present" and not be a factor? Huh??? Everything present is a factor...always a question of degree.

Ironic you would bring up crackpot.
Simple enough.
Humanity will continue to thrive, in spite of your crackpot predictions. We know this because that is a logical and rational extension of existing, and very powerful trends.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
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 » Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:20 am

Thats not what "being a factor" means.

Crackpot actually would be a step up from where you have dug yourself on this issue. Interesting how your arguments become more extreme. You look better being brain dead repetitious.
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: 12934
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 27, 2018 4:27 am

So speaks the guy who keeps repeating nonsense.

Bobbo. There is no evidence whatever that AGW will result in any serious harm to the human species. Certainly it is a massive pain in the posterior. Certainly it will cost. But that is not an existential threat.

On the other hand, there is a mass of evidence that shows people can adapt to almost anything, with or without technology. When desert dwelling Tuaregs can survive very well in temperatures that vary up to 50 Celsius, with no special technology to help (definitely no air conditioners involved), then I realise that your statements about AGW killing off millions of people as being pure crackpot.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
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 » Thu Dec 27, 2018 6:19 am

Lance: you just keep digging. You are hysterically flip flopping thinking words can mean whatever you want them to. I don't expect any answer from you anymore but there is no serious distinction between "no evidence for any serious harm" and "massive pain in the posterior.' Where is your bedrock reliance on numbers and data????

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

You are stretched beyond your comfort zone.......gibbering away with direct contradictions: the cognitive dissonance of knowing one thing but desiring its opposite.

........and btw: yes, I notice you never addressed the issue of the moment: what "being a factor means.' I know you know what it means, but any honest response would include an apology on your part..............so...............no one is holding their breath.

Good thing I used to practice tennis against a brick wall...........I have some familiarity with the process, but its not much fun.
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
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 14442
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Major Malfunction » Thu Dec 27, 2018 6:32 am

Meh. 100M isn't even as much as 'Flu killed in a year. WW2 did a similar job, as did Communism.

Global Warming really needs to step-up its game if it wants to compete. It should be aiming for several billions, at least.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12934
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 27, 2018 8:14 am

Re not being a factor.
That was in relation to the strong likelihood that the human population will top out at around 10 billion and fall thereafter. Global warming is not a factor in that fall, since it is based on a prediction of continuing drops in human fertility.

Does that answer your question, Bobbo ?

Global warming is not an existential threat to the human species. It is a pain in the butt, and something that will cost a lot of money to adapt to. But not a threat to human existence. Nor is it likely to kill 100 million people.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 14442
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Major Malfunction » Thu Dec 27, 2018 8:21 am

I think we're a mostly k-type species.

At least the smarter individuals seem to be.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
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 » Thu Dec 27, 2018 10:31 am

Major Malfunction wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 6:32 am
It should be aiming for several billions, at least.
It is.
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?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
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 » Thu Dec 27, 2018 10:32 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 8:14 am
Re not being a factor.
That was in relation to the strong likelihood that the human population will top out at around 10 billion and fall thereafter. Global warming is not a factor in that fall, since it is based on a prediction of continuing drops in human fertility.

Does that answer your question, Bobbo ?

Global warming is not an existential threat to the human species. It is a pain in the butt, and something that will cost a lot of money to adapt to. But not a threat to human existence. Nor is it likely to kill 100 million people.
I agree Lance, if you remove from consideration all but human fertility rates, then all other factors are not in being. But THAT is not what those words mean. Buy a dictionary.
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: 3901
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 27, 2018 2:28 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:27 am
So speaks the guy who keeps repeating nonsense.

Bobbo. There is no evidence whatever that AGW will result in any serious harm to the human species. Certainly it is a massive pain in the posterior. Certainly it will cost. But that is not an existential threat.

On the other hand, there is a mass of evidence that shows people can adapt to almost anything, with or without technology. When desert dwelling Tuaregs can survive very well in temperatures that vary up to 50 Celsius, with no special technology to help (definitely no air conditioners involved), then I realise that your statements about AGW killing off millions of people as being pure crackpot.
I love how your examples are always of primitive people. That is precisely the threat of AGW, that it will roll back progress. Now, progress is a different subject and we can argue about what that means, but I kinda like cures for cancer, increasing crop yields, and the mapping of the human genome. The kind of survival you are depicting is certainly plausible and probable, but it ignores the type of survival where people build technology that protects them from the very problems that their technology caused. Those people will sit in air conditioned bunkers with codes to launch nuclear missiles. When there are enough people doing just fine on camels in deserts, that will be a threat to them and they are likely to deal with it.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10846
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:34 pm

Knowing how fragile our society has become due to dependence on technology, we are one catastrophe away from a complete meltdown. Without the grid or the internet, civilization will grind to a halt, and we could be weeks away from mass starvation and chaos. The primitive peoples are the most likely to survive. It all depends on the severity of the crisis.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12934
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 27, 2018 5:24 pm

Landrew

That is not what the data shows.

There are many trends in play as time passes. Here are some:


Increasing social stability with less violent crime.
Increasing technological capability.
Reducing fertility.
Increasing wealth, including third world nations.
More and more democratic governments.
The Long Peace.
Increasing human welfare.
Increasing human health.
Increasing life span.
Etc.

These are powerful trends and cover the world. They represent a social tsunami of change for the good. Sure there are localised reversals of these, and some people focus on the exceptions rather than the rule. They are wrong to do so.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
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 » Thu Dec 27, 2018 6:02 pm

Heres a trend line: when natural predators are removed from an ecosystem, every known species has multiplied until its numbers crashed by their own weight.

Why would hoomans be any different? and note: its SCIENCE that has removed our natural predators. Causation and Cure at the same time??? OR...will one dominate the other? Of further note: Causation is a constant while cure has to arise every time........otherwise: Darwin Wins.
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: 10846
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Thu Dec 27, 2018 6:19 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 5:24 pm
Landrew

That is not what the data shows.

There are many trends in play as time passes. Here are some:


Increasing social stability with less violent crime.
Increasing technological capability.
Reducing fertility.
Increasing wealth, including third world nations.
More and more democratic governments.
The Long Peace.
Increasing human welfare.
Increasing human health.
Increasing life span.
Etc.

These are powerful trends and cover the world. They represent a social tsunami of change for the good. Sure there are localised reversals of these, and some people focus on the exceptions rather than the rule. They are wrong to do so.
You're not accounting for a serious catastrophe like the loss of the power grid or the internet. We've lost the ability to fall back to simpler methods of survival. The results could be truly disastrous.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
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 » Thu Dec 27, 2018 6:24 pm

Worse, to "fall back to simpler methods of survival" UNAVOIDABLY requires/forces a smaller population. Thats "horrible" for those who make it, and DEAD for those who don't. Hard to adapt to DEAD. I assume Lance thinks he could do it..........luckily for us, I think we will narrowly avoid that reality, and maybe even our kiddies. Its the grandkiddies and later I fear for................Reality always impinging on the dreams of the not quite lucid.
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: 12934
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 27, 2018 9:03 pm

Bobbo
Your trend line for population growth and crash when predators are removed has ALREADY been not only broken, but twisted into a shadow of it's former self, by humans. Humans break all the rules of ecology. It is kinda silly to ask why. Although the answer is obvious. Just accept that it is.

Landrew
As to living simpler if the internet or something else fails. There is no reason to assume a total collapse. Humanity without the internet still has its libraries, laboratories, engineering works etc. No one is going to go back to what you foolishly call a simpler way of life.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
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 » Thu Dec 27, 2018 10:01 pm

Short horizon. Knowledge and Imagination.

Stupid Monkey, full of bananas and hubris.
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: 10846
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Thu Dec 27, 2018 10:39 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:03 pm
Landrew
As to living simpler if the internet or something else fails. There is no reason to assume a total collapse. Humanity without the internet still has its libraries, laboratories, engineering works etc. No one is going to go back to what you foolishly call a simpler way of life.
No reason to assume a total collapse but it could certainly happen. No need to refute the possibility. A little research will reveal how vulnerable we are with the current infrastructure. If the Carrington event of 1859 were to occur today, it could reduce our infrastructure to a shambles. The grid and most electronics could get knocked out. I suggest you read up a bit before you embark on your arguments against the scenario:
https://www.powermag.com/expect-death-i ... ower-grid/
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11960
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 27, 2018 10:43 pm

landrew wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 10:39 pm
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:03 pm
Landrew
As to living simpler if the internet or something else fails. There is no reason to assume a total collapse. Humanity without the internet still has its libraries, laboratories, engineering works etc. No one is going to go back to what you foolishly call a simpler way of life.
No reason to assume a total collapse but it could certainly happen. No need to refute the possibility. A little research will reveal how vulnerable we are with the current infrastructure. If the Carrington event of 1859 were to occur today, it could reduce our infrastructure to a shambles. The grid and most electronics could get knocked out. I suggest you read up a bit before you embark on your arguments against the scenario:
https://www.powermag.com/expect-death-i ... ower-grid/
Good suggestion. Virtually all distribution of goods, including food, is controlled through vulnerable networks. There would not be much time to get the systems up and running again before massive disaster ensued.
. . . 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

.......................Doesn't matter how often I'm proved wrong.................... ~ bobbo the pragmatist

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12934
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 28, 2018 12:25 am

That event would not knock out written books and reports, or the knowledge and skill inside peoples heads. Sure, it would be a set back, but electronics can be and would be rebuilt.

Networks can be replaced by manual systems quickly. Not perfectly, but it would not be an existential threat. Just a major pain.

It is not terribly difficult to "harden" computers and other electronics against flares or electromagnetic pulse threats. Simply putting them in a Faraday box, and making sure they are unplugged from mains power normally does the trick. With a little warning, this can even be done at home to protect your own devices
Last edited by Lance Kennedy on Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
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 28, 2018 12:45 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:25 am
That event would not knock out written books and reports, or the knowledge and skill inside peoples heads. Sure, it would be a set back, but electronics can be and would be rebuilt.

Networks can be replaced by manual systems quickly. Not perfectly, but it would not be an existential threat. Just a major pain.
:frown: :sinking: :slapfight: :tease:

Image
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: 12934
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 28, 2018 12:49 am

The thing is, Bobbo, that you are a pathological pessimist. Where I see solutions, you see disasters. It is just a matter of your somewhat dysfunctional personality.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
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 28, 2018 12:52 am

Yeah, butt, waht you doan see is any humor at all. You know what they call a humorless person....right?===>Oops, I gave it away...........

I'd love to know......
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
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 14442
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Major Malfunction » Fri Dec 28, 2018 8:20 am

Once we figure-out fusion and the next ice-age comes, we can just melt big holes in the ice and live in a network of ice caves. Like Ice Ants. Eating fungus.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.