100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12028
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 Oct 03, 2018 4:56 am

On energy.

It is true that energy efficiency has become a big deal lately, and this means developed nations have recently had increases in standard of living without energy increase. But globally, the relationship holds true. The more per capita energy, the higher the welfare standard.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4536
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by ElectricMonk » Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:24 am

nope.
There is no linear correlation whatsoever.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12028
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 Oct 03, 2018 6:37 am

EM

There has been a very strong correlation, expecially over time. I do not know if it is linear, but the correlation is there.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4536
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by ElectricMonk » Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:21 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:EM

There has been a very strong correlation, expecially over time. I do not know if it is linear, but the correlation is there.
Lance Kennedy wrote: The more per capita energy, the higher the welfare standard.
that's a linear (or possibly exponential) correlation you are describing.
But historically, we can see that the actual correlation is bumpy and not even positive all the time.


No doubt, there is an initial boost from widespread availability of power, But it plateaus quickly.
And it doesn't help if all the energy is used by a big airport and there is nothing left to provide light to hospitals.

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4814
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Dwayne de Schwamp
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:02 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Just to quibble: "Ice Ages" are not caused by "unusually warm climatic conditions." As you say: Ice will accumulate and gain mass in a few places while in general it is melting. Thats not an ice age.
Thank you. I accept the correction.
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

― Frédéric Bastiat (1801–1850), French economist

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12028
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 Oct 03, 2018 7:26 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:21 am



But historically, we can see that the actual correlation is bumpy and not even positive all the time.


EM

You are getting confused between statistical signal and statistical noise.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16139
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 Oct 04, 2018 3:14 am

Without knowing, I'll just guess that there should be a positive correlation to different degrees between energy usage and welfare. Its concomitant causation. Live in a hut with no electricity and your welfare is low. Now...as I saw in china: mud hut with fire in the corner with smoke going up through cracks in the roof, and add a solar panel for tv and the phone and instantly, welfare goes up. Not direct causation, but definitely concomitant. All casual relationships have positive correlations. Not one to one and with sophistication, as we are seeing, the correlation could reverse and go negative, again: concomitant causation highly dependent on what "welfare" is thought to be.

Actually, all kind of interesting, …………..until the deluge because long term welfare was ignored for short term welfare...………………..
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: 16139
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 Oct 04, 2018 3:34 am

Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:02 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Just to quibble: "Ice Ages" are not caused by "unusually warm climatic conditions." As you say: Ice will accumulate and gain mass in a few places while in general it is melting. Thats not an ice age.
Thank you. I accept the correction.
Thanks. I only meant to "quibble" as your meaning was clear. No "correction" was intended...…..although on reread..... :D
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: 12028
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 Oct 04, 2018 4:27 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:14 am


Actually, all kind of interesting, …………..until the deluge because long term welfare was ignored for short term welfare...………………..
As I keep telling you, Bobbo, your pessimism is emotion based, not data based. There is no data to suggest that the future means lower welfare for humanity. Quite the contrary. Long term trends towards a better life for everyone continue. Even in Africa, on average there is an increase in wealth of 3% or more each year. Even as world population grows towards the projected (United Nations) maximum of 10 to 12 billion, the number of people malnourished continues to fall. For people, the world keeps becoming a better place to live in.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4536
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:18 am

you can't speak of a correlation when two parameters sometimes rise together and sometimes move in the opposite direction from one another.
Technological energy saving measures both increase well being and decrease energy consumption.

I am fully aware how critical energy is to modern life. But throwing more power at a society doesn't lead to a better life unless a lot of other problems are solved first. This is the problem with many Mega power plants in developing countries which take up resources to build that would be much better used on other projects.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12028
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 Oct 04, 2018 8:14 am

EM

I do not want to be rude, but it appears to me that you have little understanding of statistics. In particular, in this case, of what correlation means. The noise overlying the signal (the bits on the graph bouncing up and down ) do not obviate the underlying signal. Globally, and over a period of centuries, more energy use per capita correlates with higher human welfare. The noise on the graph does not change this.

Of course, you can argue that correlation does not prove causation. So you can argue that more energy is not the cause of greater human welfare, but that is a different argument.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4536
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:51 am

lance, hiding behind signal/noise to avoid having to admit that there is no clear correlation is weak.

You are probably right when it comes to fulfilling the basic needs (as I have mentioned in the correlation between access to electricity and well-being). But beyond that, well-being and energy consumption seems to be very much uncorrelated:
Well-being with the rise of computers and the internet has increased dramatically without an even remotely similar rise in energy consumption.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16139
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 Oct 04, 2018 9:42 am

ElectricMonk wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:51 am
lance, hiding behind signal/noise to avoid having to admit that there is no clear correlation is weak.

You are probably right when it comes to fulfilling the basic needs (as I have mentioned in the correlation between access to electricity and well-being). But beyond that, well-being and energy consumption seems to be very much uncorrelated:
Well-being with the rise of computers and the internet has increased dramatically without an even remotely similar rise in energy consumption.
Used to be that the second biggest energy consumer after the home refrigerator was the vampire drain of the router. Mine is on 24/7 ANYWAY....so I haven't confirmed my own usage whatever it might be in standby mode.

Note the rise in computer tomography and other computer BASED healthcare technologies and planning??????

Your "argument" really should proceed past mere assertion.
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
Upton_O_Goode
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4814
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Dwayne de Schwamp
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:23 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:14 am
EM

I do not want to be rude, but it appears to me that you have little understanding of statistics. In particular, in this case, of what correlation means. The noise overlying the signal (the bits on the graph bouncing up and down ) do not obviate the underlying signal. Globally, and over a period of centuries, more energy use per capita correlates with higher human welfare. The noise on the graph does not change this.

Of course, you can argue that correlation does not prove causation. So you can argue that more energy is not the cause of greater human welfare, but that is a different argument.
While I'm not a statistician, it is a fact that you can get a correlation between any two data sets of the same length, say n. Regard them as vectors in n-dimensional space, and their coefficient of correlation is the cosine of the angle between them. If it's 1, they are perfectly correlated (the vectors point exactly the same direction in n-space). If it's 0, they are uncorrelated (the vectors are mutually perpendicular). If it's -1, they are perfectly, but negatively correlated (the vectors point in exactly opposite directions). Most correlations, of course, fall into the other range between -1 and 0 or between 0 and 1.
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

― Frédéric Bastiat (1801–1850), French economist

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4814
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Dwayne de Schwamp
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:27 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:42 am

Used to be that the second biggest energy consumer after the home refrigerator was the vampire drain of the router. Mine is on 24/7 ANYWAY....so I haven't confirmed my own usage whatever it might be in standby mode.
I didn't know that! I need to rethink my energy usage, in that case, as I just assumed computers were minor factors in my household budget. The only one that ever gets turned off is the one I'm writing this message on. The other two are on all the time, as is the router.
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

― Frédéric Bastiat (1801–1850), French economist

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12028
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 Oct 04, 2018 8:52 pm

Actually, the biggest user of electricity in the home, mostly, (as an overall average, since there are many individual exceptions ) is water heating. Winter heating of the home is also a big user. If an air conditioner is used a lot in summer, that rises to the top pretty quickly. In fact, it displaces water heating as number 1 if used a lot. Lighting may be number 2 in many cases. The refrigerator is a lot less, and computers are less also.

http://www.visualcapitalist.com/what-us ... ergy-home/

Admittedly, in putting water heating at the top, I am being a bit parochial. Here is NZ, that is absolutely true, but only because we have a more equable climate than you unfortunate Americans. Less hot in summer and less cold in winter.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16139
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 Oct 04, 2018 11:42 pm

Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:27 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:42 am

Used to be that the second biggest energy consumer after the home refrigerator was the vampire drain of the router. Mine is on 24/7 ANYWAY....so I haven't confirmed my own usage whatever it might be in standby mode.
I didn't know that! I need to rethink my energy usage, in that case, as I just assumed computers were minor factors in my household budget. The only one that ever gets turned off is the one I'm writing this message on. The other two are on all the time, as is the router.
Well....don't quote me. My info comes from a YouTuber that cut his elect bill by 1/3 JUST BY turning off his router when he went to bed. amps x volts = watts and you are billed on kilowatts of usage. Routers are not computers per se that have their own energy profiles you can work on. Used to be that you could heat your whole house with a good old analogue TV....now they hardly use anything. I assume over time the router issue has been corrected???? If interested....look up "Vampire Electrical" for some good hints.
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: 16139
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 Oct 04, 2018 11:50 pm

Water heating, at least in Sacramento, is almost all gas. Maybe some point of use tech is being used for whole house, but not quite yet. I have my gas heater set to "Pilot Light" (joke: but it is down around 120...turn it up when I think of it for a "special" shower or bath) with a point of use at the kitchen sink. I hate waste because...………...its a waste. But I ENJOY a long hot shower now and then and don't mind draining the tank to get one. I do kinda wish I had a switch to have the clean water drain into my yard. We are charged by usage...I haven't looked at it in years.
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: 3673
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 Nov 29, 2018 6:39 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sat Sep 15, 2018 6:24 pm

Contra: ((but not really)) just saw another show on making hydrocarbon fuel out of atmospheric co2.
I'm ignoring most of this boring argument.

I saw this carbon from the air thing, but when I only see something once, I leave it, thinking it's fake news, or at least waiting for confirmation. It seems too much like the thing from Ayn Rand that made electricity out of nothing. I'm hopeful that it's real, but then the unknown factor is that we don't have data on the carbon level suddenly dropping. We may have already put climate change into effect and can't stop it.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9003
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Thu Nov 29, 2018 7:36 pm

I've heard of this carbon from the air thing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12028
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 Nov 29, 2018 8:03 pm

I approve of Laustens comments. Very sensible.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9003
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Thu Nov 29, 2018 8:43 pm

Biofuels have had mixed reviews in recent years, but the fact remains that they are carbon-neutral. The photosynthesis portion is powered by free solar energy. The processing portion is powered by the energy source of our choice. I doubt we could ever develop a synthetic technology which could compete with nature.

Hydrogen power does it one better by not using carbon at all. It's possible that if we were to switch to a hydrogen economy, the net release of carbon to the atmosphere might fall below the rate of sequestration by plants and other photosynthetic organisms. This would gradually lower the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. A hydrogen economy may some day allow us to control the amount of carbon in the atmosphere by controlling the amount of carbon we release through biofuels and other industrial processes.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16139
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 Nov 30, 2018 1:54 am

Bio fuels are a mixed bag. They are net contributers to co2 when food crops are used. They get close to carbon neutral on waste products so STOP THE SUBSIDIES to corn based Farmer Bribery and develop the tech for waste stocks.

Hydrogen economy will be a large part of the picture because it acts as the battery for excess solar energy available at any given location. Capture Energy where you can...…...and move it to where you can't. Just makes good sense.

I don't "know" but my gut tells me plants CAN'T sequester as much carbon as would be needed except as measured in 10K type years. we are already in disasterous climate changed conditions. Just give the pot time to finish cooking the ingredients.

To avoid a MASSIVE DISASTER in a few decades, we NEED TO NOW: create a minor disaster by a massive SEQUESTRATION PROGRAM to get the co2 out of the atmosphere. All the talk of shading us from/reflecting the sun is a solution worse than the cure and should be dropped totally.

A hydrogen economy is only a footnote for the real green/solar/wind economy. Coal should be outlawed now and we all take our lumps. Think that is painful and unacceptable?...…………………….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
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3673
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 Nov 30, 2018 2:31 am

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/201 ... l-science/

It does appear to be real. My first 5 hits were the big names in science publications. But after seeing the reactions this week to the report that says climate change will cost us billions, I'm still pessimistic. The people who can change the policies just don't get it. They keep saying the cost will be too high, that it will wreck the economy to make the needed changes. Even in the face of facts that say it will definitely cost the economy if we do nothing. So, they have to sell fuel to get people to suck carbon out of the air.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16139
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 Nov 30, 2018 2:53 am

Nice link. Just another technology that exists/works in the lab, that can be scaled to industrial efficiency, but still is not cost competitive with digging in the dirt and leaving the trash and waste products behind without cost (aka: externalized cost, aka: pollution).

POINT IS: The government has to build several dozens of such plants every year for full time production of the co2 free fuel....and then find a mine to dump it down. it can't all be burned: it has to be sequestered. The MIND SET on these issues is interesting....we fall into a commercial context rather than the save the earth context. I still think what is needed is a tech to pull co2 out of the air and then sequester it in some kind of building material, like a light weight or transparent concrete sort of product....whatever the tech can do. That was you get some revenue instead of dumping it down a rat hole......only to leak into our ground water.

its always something.
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: 16139
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 Nov 30, 2018 3:22 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 8:03 pm
I approve of Laustens comments. Very sensible.
Wut? The only accurate thing he said was that we are already in climate change.....a recognition you shy away from. don't quibble....we all hate the quibble.
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: 12028
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 Nov 30, 2018 3:34 am

Biofuels are not carbon neutral, UNLESS the plants are replanted. Today biofuels are palm oil from cutting down tropical rainforest, or wood from cutting down all kinds of forests. Since many of those forests are not replanted, it makes biofuels a significant contributor to carbon emissions.

Planting more forests will help soak up carbon, but will not, by itself, be a total solution. What is needed is a range of measures to prevent CO2 emissions as well as soaking up what is already in the air. Hydrogen is currently a net emitter of carbon, since it is mostly made from natural gas, and the energy used in the process also emits carbon. Hydrogen potentially could be part of the solution if it were gained from electrolysis of water, using electricity from something that did not emit carbon. But currently that is not the case.

As I have said before, the first priority is to get rid of the burning of coal, since per unit energy gained, it is the biggest carbon emitter.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16139
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 Nov 30, 2018 3:41 am

Lance: so do you approve or disapprove of Laustens comments...…...ummm…..as to their sensibility if not their accuracy?
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
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9003
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:55 am

Exaggerating the problem won't get it solved any sooner. It just causes lack of trust.
Like calling wolf.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16139
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 02, 2018 8:52 am

landrew wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:55 am
Exaggerating the problem won't get it solved any sooner. It just causes lack of trust.
Like calling wolf.
What exaggeration has been made? aka: not accepting the reasonable worst case projection of any problem only likens its result. Who wants that?
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
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9003
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Sun Dec 02, 2018 4:08 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 8:52 am
landrew wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:55 am
Exaggerating the problem won't get it solved any sooner. It just causes lack of trust.
Like calling wolf.
What exaggeration has been made? aka: not accepting the reasonable worst case projection of any problem only likens its result. Who wants that?
"The arctic will be ice-free by 2013." Remember when Al Gore said that? It may seem like it's good for the cause, but overstating the climate crisis is not the way forward. It causes loss of trust from members of the public. A credible message is the right message.

Climate change is a serious problem, but we won't be helping much by "crying wolf." It happens too much, and it needs to stop.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12028
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 02, 2018 7:51 pm

I agree with landrew. Bobbo is not the pragmatist. He is the alarmist.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16139
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 02, 2018 9:30 pm

landrew wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 4:08 pm
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 8:52 am
landrew wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:55 am
Exaggerating the problem won't get it solved any sooner. It just causes lack of trust.
Like calling wolf.
What exaggeration has been made? aka: not accepting the reasonable worst case projection of any problem only likens its result. Who wants that?
"The arctic will be ice-free by 2013." Remember when Al Gore said that? It may seem like it's good for the cause, but overstating the climate crisis is not the way forward. It causes loss of trust from members of the public. A credible message is the right message.

Climate change is a serious problem, but we won't be helping much by "crying wolf." It happens too much, and it needs to stop.
Did he actually say that?.....or is that the result of the spin meisters that you have bought into? My gut says Algore is educated on the subject and he was talking only about 20 years ago....so Ice free (what does that mean as in ice free for ship passage in summer or winter or whenever?) in 20 years doesn't sound credible....so I doubt he said that.

Now: got any exaggerations from people qualified to speak on the subject or do you stick to unqualified politicians/business hucksters? MY POINT IT: the science community imho has been WAY TOO QUIET in (not) raising the alarm....so I question your motive in even raising it as an issue.

Given the current best estimates of the curves/risks/lag time involved, is it Alarmist/exaggerated to say we are already too late? If so....how can anyone really exaggerate anything? I pity the kiddies.
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: 16139
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 02, 2018 9:31 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 7:51 pm
I agree with landrew. Bobbo is not the pragmatist. He is the alarmist.
When its the balance between rapacious short term business interests and the FATE OF MANKIND, if not just our culture: its pragmatic to be alarmist...… or at least keep up with the best estimates.

Ha, ha...…...I do chuckle: Quote the Lance: "We'll just adapt to it."...….like grow gills.
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?

Skeptic1001
New Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2018 7:23 am

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Skeptic1001 » Sun Dec 02, 2018 9:52 pm

100 million could die but 1.5 billion will be born.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12028
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 02, 2018 10:55 pm

Bobbo

That is a misquote.
I have always said we need to do two things. Mitigate the problem as best we can, without causing a lot of harm to a lot of people, and adapt to the changes.

You on the other hand subscribe to the hair shirt philosophy. If it does not involve sacrifice (and probably lead to mass human deaths ) it is not good enough. I believe that we can do the two things shown above without causing some form of harm to billions of people.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9003
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » 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.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16139
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 02, 2018 11:38 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 10:55 pm
Bobbo

That is a misquote.
I have always said we need to do two things. Mitigate the problem as best we can, without causing a lot of harm to a lot of people, and adapt to the changes.

You on the other hand subscribe to the hair shirt philosophy. If it does not involve sacrifice (and probably lead to mass human deaths ) it is not good enough. I believe that we can do the two things shown above without causing some form of harm to billions of people.
Misquote?.....How does a copy and paste job do THAT? Speaking of which...…..how often have I said we should act NOW to avoid greater harm later? Acting NOW would allow for mitigation and as little sacrifice as possible. In Fact, it is you and the Science Deniers/Quibblers/Fantacists/Pollyannas that are going to cause the most harn/cost/damage to society.

"I believe...……." ==>and out go the numbers.
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: 16139
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 02, 2018 11:48 pm

landrew wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:30 pm
Alarmism is foolishness.
All tautologies are true, and useless.
landrew wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:30 pm
It hurts the real cause in ways that divide people up into 2 warring tribes.
Alarmism arises when ONE warring tribe, aka: the AlreadyTooRich, denies the Truth/Science/Rational/Pragmatic approach, lies about it so that nothing is done until ALARM bells start going off at the amount of smoke coming in under the door sill.
landrew wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:30 pm
It gives fodder to the denialists who find it very easy to point to alarmist claims and debunk them mercilessly.
As stated, the Alarms would not go off without the deniers fraudulently debunking the reasonable claims/warnings that go unheeded.
landrew wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:30 pm

Look at this headline: "100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030."
Only idiots read headlines. What did the body of the report say? Link? ===> Ha, ha.....yeah, I know. I thought my own link was a few years later. What "did" that article say? Put your attention where it is warranted rather than the click bait.
landrew wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:30 pm

Look at this headline: "100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030." Seriously? That's not alarmist?
All depends on the facts and assumptions relied upon in the article. Otherwise, its just posturing and arguing without foundation. why do you do that?
landrew wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:30 pm
….and how would you alert the comatose and brain dead?
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: 12028
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 » Mon Dec 03, 2018 1:07 am

Bobbo

Acting now is fine, and the beginning is under way. As always, when a new direction is chosen, there are mistakes made, and already we see many mistakes. This is one reason why there is still not enough progress. For example, we see carbon taxes being twisted by the tax experts to permit money gained without genuine reductions in carbon emissions. Another example is the biofuel in use which actually makes the problem worse.

But at least there is a start. Ironically, the biggest progress is in China, leading the world with replacing high carbon technologies. Of course, China has the longest path, since it has the worst pollution, but it is almost amusing that the supposedly most advanced nation, the USA, is the one most dragging its heels.