Deaths from climate change

[AnalogPackrat]

This is the case where I live. They can’t seem to build house developments fast enough. It’s an hour to downtown Denver but the people keep coming. So Evs are workable for a drive but my daughters Honda Fit averages 39.5 mpg and is fun to drive. When the battery bank goes bad on your Tesla, isn’t it like 20k to replace. That would suck. I only paid $16k for the Honda Fit loaded.

My wife drives a 2018 Fit. It's a really nice little car. Reliable, low maintenance, efficient.

 

[user 37518]

They should give climate activists more of these opportunities to make a fool out of themselves. You really only need to let them talk for the world to see the absurdity of their positions. And they all bring in "consensus" which, as I have said before, is complete nonsense and there is not even a formal consensus. By the way, I just want to buy the physicist a beer.

Edit: Note that in their mind if you disagree with the IPCC you disagree with Science; there is no other logical explanation, the IPCC says so, you obey or you are disagreeing with Science. Soon, disagreeing with "science" will be punishable by law; "sins against science". Sorry, that has already been done before during COVID, back when a government representative declared himself as The Science.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

They should give climate activists more of these opportunities to make a fool out of themselves. You really only need to let them talk for the world to see the absurdity of their positions. And they all bring in "consensus" which, as I have said before, is complete nonsense and there is not even a formal consensus. By the way, I just want to buy the physicist a beer.

Reality > Magical Thinking

 

[user 37518]

Wow, this ridiculous ideology knows no limits.

SNP admits to felling 16 million trees to develop wind farms

 

[user 37518]

 

[L´Andratté]

You know what you´re opposed to for sure, but what is your actual viewpoint on climate change?
It is absolutely not clear to me. You think, it´s all a hoax or just unfortunate coincidence or what? Prefer to not think about it, "the markets" will ride it out? Satisfied, to see all go up in flames?
Honestly, I can´t see a clear standpoint.
But I don´t have to, the amount of grievances laid bare in this thread alone is telling me it´s not about rational thinking at all...

 

[ruffrecords]

You know what you´re opposed to for sure, but what is your actual viewpoint on climate change?
It is absolutely not clear to me. You think, it´s all a hoax or just unfortunate coincidence or what? Prefer to not think about it, "the markets" will ride it out? Satisfied, to see all go up in flames?
Honestly, I can´t see a clear standpoint.
But I don´t have to, the amount of grievances laid bare in this thread alone is telling me it´s not about rational thinking at all...

For me it is very simple really. I am a seeker after truth. I oppose being lied to, brainwashed and manipulated.

Cheers

Ian

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Well, then. My wife owns all of the "bad" stuff, too. Gas cars, chainsaws, lawn mowers, tractor, weed eater, the NG furnace. I just use them, so I'm innocent of any environmental wrongdoing or hypocrisy. Right?

What kind of "man" publicly throws his wife/family under the bus like that rather than simply admitting the truth? Walk your talk, you arrogant bastard.

 

[Matador]

But I don´t have to, the amount of grievances laid bare in this thread alone is telling me it´s not about rational thinking at all...

 

[user 37518]

You know what you´re opposed to for sure, but what is your actual viewpoint on climate change?
It is absolutely not clear to me. You think, it´s all a hoax or just unfortunate coincidence or what? Prefer to not think about it, "the markets" will ride it out? Satisfied, to see all go up in flames?
Honestly, I can´t see a clear standpoint.

I think climate is changing but I don't share the doomsday vision of these people. I don't think that climate is the number one threat we are facing today. Above all, I deeply despise the fact that much of what these people do in the name of climate is just for show and plain hypocrisy, like that news article I posted, they rather have 16 million trees cut down to build wind farms. They just do this because it is politically correct, not because it is right or even useful.

But I don´t have to, the amount of grievances laid bare in this thread alone is telling me it´s not about rational thinking at all...

No rational thinking, why? In fact I think the opposite, all the examples of these climate activists show no rational thinking at all on their part, why exactly do you think that there is no rational thinking in this thread, because we do not share the same doomsday vision or the "climate above all" mentality that you have?

 

[L´Andratté]

For me it is very simple really. I am a seeker after truth. I oppose being lied to, brainwashed and manipulated.

Sadly "simple" and "truth" don´t always go together.
Noone wants to get manipulated, yet everyone gets manipulated, one way or the other. What is it you are aiming at, who is the "liar" in the discussion about climate change?
Do you also dislike being manipulated by forces that you inherently support (rethoric question)?

I think climate is changing but I don't share the doomsday vision of these people. I don't think that climate is the number one threat we are facing today. Above all, I deeply despise the fact that much of what these people do in the name of climate is just for show and plain hypocrisy, like that news article I posted, they rather have 16 million trees cut down to build wind farms. They just do this because it is politically correct, not because it is right or even useful.


No rational thinking, why? In fact I think the opposite, all the examples of these climate activists show no rational thinking at all on their part, why exactly do you think that there is no rational thinking in this thread, because we do not share the same doomsday vision or the "climate above all" mentality that you have?

user 37518, thanks for your answer!
(in the following I used generic "you" which doesn´t allude to you personally!)

Now the "climate activists" may be questionable and even counterproductive in what they do, but we should agree it does not result in any conclusions about the accelerating process of climate change itself, as they are only reactions to it.
Doing so would be highly un-rational, imho.

Unless you deny the process of climate change, man made or not, itself, in which case this discussion would become pointless, you have to admit, that even today there are a lot of people in pain, even dying and losing their livelyhoods from climate change and it´s consequences.
And a whole lot more people are scared out of their minds by facts like (just for example, sadly I could produce some more) the University of Glasgow finding arctic krill populations are down to 20% of what they were due to climate effects and pollution.
Which should scare us out of our minds because it means, major food chains are on the brink of collapse.

Of course you are welcome to doubt and challenge the underlying causes for the climate changes observed. And I am not even arguing against that, scepticism is necessary to a point.
But what strikes me as very bad idea, is the callousness with which a certain part of the population (mainly those who have a lot to lose and a lot to say + their underlings) simply choose to ignore and deny climate change itself and with it any approach to lessen it´s impact and the pain and terror that is inflicted on a big part of humanity. This is not looking for a solution.

In fact it gets drenched in spite and cheap glee, from people who are just better off, for the moment or plain ideologically motivated. This is un-rational. Mixing up inter-human conflicts (politics) with finding a useful reaction to a real existing and growing global threat seems not to be good idea to me. Do you NOT notice how politics of all colours are pushing diffuse anger and grievance towards political opponents?
Why succumb to that?

We should remember the value of balance in complex systems and stop our unbalancing everything for short time gain and convenience. That would be wise.
But it shows that we are just overrated grandiose apes with a sweet spot for instrumental intelligence.

TLDR: There is a real world problem. Ideologically motivated reactions (or worse, inaction) to a real world problems and cherry-picking of facts are un-rational, applies to all "sides" of course. We should get our shit together and start doing this job for our children even if it means giving up a little of our convenience.

 

[L´Andratté]

(...)

You know the story of the man jumping out of the tenth floor window and in passing the fifth floor window says "This isn´t nearly as bad as i thought"

 

[fazer]

Saw this on the CBS Sunday morning show. It’s a good start.

Bill Gates' TerraPower aims to build its first advanced nuclear reactor in a coal town in Wyoming

 

[JohnRoberts]

Sadly "simple" and "truth" don´t always go together.
Noone wants to get manipulated, yet everyone gets manipulated, one way or the other. What is it you are aiming at, who is the "liar" in the discussion about climate change?
Do you also dislike being manipulated by forces that you inherently support (rethoric question)?

user 37518, thanks for your answer!
(in the following I used generic "you" which doesn´t allude to you personally!)

Now the "climate activists" may be questionable and even counterproductive in what they do, but we should agree it does not result in any conclusions about the accelerating process of climate change itself, as they are only reactions to it.
Doing so would be highly un-rational, imho.

"accelerating process"? The only thing I see accelerating is hyperbolic claims from climate activists.

government white paper Multiple graphs show a steadily rising temperature no "acceleration". One graph shows a softening rate of rise from lower emissions.

Unless you deny the process of climate change, man made or not, itself, in which case this discussion would become pointless, you have to admit, that even today there are a lot of people in pain, even dying and losing their livelyhoods from climate change and it´s consequences.

This is a popular talking point.. mid summer the talk about deaths from over heating. The reality is that far more people die from cold than heat. Secondly widely available low cost energy can reduce deaths from both.

And a whole lot more people are scared out of their minds by facts like (just for example, sadly I could produce some more) the University of Glasgow finding arctic krill populations are down to 20% of what they were due to climate effects and pollution.
Which should scare us out of our minds because it means, major food chains are on the brink of collapse.

Scaring people to suspend any thoughtful analysis is common persuasion tactic. These days they start scaring children in grade school.

Of course you are welcome to doubt and challenge the underlying causes for the climate changes observed. And I am not even arguing against that, scepticism is necessary to a point.

That is not the debate. Climate change is an objective fact. The disagreement is about what is our proper response.

But what strikes me as very bad idea, is the callousness with which a certain part of the population (mainly those who have a lot to lose and a lot to say + their underlings) simply choose to ignore and deny climate change itself and with it any approach to lessen it´s impact and the pain and terror that is inflicted on a big part of humanity. This is not looking for a solution.

In fact it gets drenched in spite and cheap glee, from people who are just better off, for the moment or plain ideologically motivated. This is un-rational. Mixing up inter-human conflicts (politics) with finding a useful reaction to a real existing and growing global threat seems not to be good idea to me. Do you NOT notice how politics of all colours are pushing diffuse anger and grievance towards political opponents?
Why succumb to that?

huh... an emotional rant?

We should remember the value of balance in complex systems and stop our unbalancing everything for short time gain and convenience. That would be wise.
But it shows that we are just overrated grandiose apes with a sweet spot for instrumental intelligence.

That sounds like the suggestion that climate has been stable in the past, and would be in the future if we shut down human activity?

A fairly new research theme finds some negative feedback systems associated with cloud formation but the models do not have the resolution (yet) to accurately project cloud formation (instead they average it over too large areas). Modeling can and will get better, at least it should.

TLDR: There is a real world problem. Ideologically motivated reactions (or worse, inaction) to a real world problems and cherry-picking of facts are un-rational, applies to all "sides" of course. We should get our shit together and start doing this job for our children even if it means giving up a little of our convenience.

My sense is that the real world problem is from all the climate do-gooders trying to severely cut carbon emissions having the unintended (?) consequence of making energy more expensive, especially harmful to poor populations.

JR

 

[crazydoc]

making energy more expensive, especially harmful to poor populations.

And if climate changhe/global warming progresses, especially due to unknown potential unintended consequences and positive feedback, it's the poor who will suffer first and most. So it looks like they are probably fucked no matter which way things go.

 

[JohnRoberts]

And if climate changhe/global warming progresses, especially due to unknown potential unintended consequences and positive feedback,

Not in the science, but in popular science fiction...

it's the poor who will suffer first and most.

they always do... but raising the cost of energy will disproportionately harm them.

So it looks like they are probably fucked no matter which way things go.

But there is no reason to make their future objectively worse.

China and India are still building coal power plants to help their citizens. They don't have the luxury that wealthy western nations like us do to ignore the math.

JR

 

[crazydoc]

There is no doubt that global warming is occurring, for whatever reason. You can keep hoping that it's all going to go away, and do nothing about it, because anything we do will "hurt poor people." Nobody knows what factors will come into play in the future (which is why I mention unintended consequences and positive feedback), but if it's not already too late we can try to mitigate the energy trapping by reducing the factors that seem to make it worse. But for obvious reasons, the plutocrats are not on board.

The effects of climate mitigation on "poor people," and all of us, will be nothing compared to the societal disruptions caused by runaway warming if that occurs. This, of course, is my own opinion, and luckily I won't be around for the worst of it, but woe to our descendants.

 

[JohnRoberts]

There is no doubt that global warming is occurring, for whatever reason.

true

You can keep hoping that it's all going to go away, and do nothing about it, because anything we do will "hurt poor people."

straw man ... if we allow low cost fossil fuel to be widely available, that will not hurt poor people (IMO).

Nobody knows what factors will come into play in the future (which is why I mention unintended consequences and positive feedback),

the positive feedback is more science fiction than fact (day after tomorrow movie, creating a ice age).

but if it's not already too late

surely not, think in terms of millions of years.

we can try to mitigate the energy trapping by reducing the factors that seem to make it worse.

High profile Chicago economists pondered this 10 or more years ago. Study of global cooling after major volcanic eruptions proves the concept. But the details (unintended consequences) remain unclear... it's not nice to fool mother nature so measure twice cut once.

But for obvious reasons, the plutocrats are not on board.

Not clear to me, please explain.

The effects of climate mitigation on "poor people," and all of us, will be nothing compared to the societal disruptions caused by runaway warming if that occurs.

Runaway warming again sounds like science fiction not a real climate model projection (while you can probably find one out of the dozens out there).

This, of course, is my own opinion, and luckily I won't be around for the worst of it, but woe to our descendants.

I will not be around either, and I do not have any children, but I do worry about the future for everybody with no-tech politicians in charge.

JR

 

[user 37518]

user 37518, thanks for your answer!
(in the following I used generic "you" which doesn´t allude to you personally!)

Unless you deny the process of climate change, man made or not, itself, in which case this discussion would become pointless, you have to admit, that even today there are a lot of people in pain, even dying and losing their livelyhoods from climate change and it´s consequences.

I do not agree that climate change is the cause of all those consequences, at least not as today is being expressed. I would say that weather has always been a cause for death and loss of livelihoods, but to say that these days it is particularly different than in past times, and that it is due specifically because an impending doom that is just manifesting itself is complete nonsense. Again, I do not say the weather is not changing, but I do not believe the doomsday scenario.

And a whole lot more people are scared out of their minds by facts like (just for example, sadly I could produce some more) the University of Glasgow finding arctic krill populations are down to 20% of what they were due to climate effects and pollution.
Which should scare us out of our minds because it means, major food chains are on the brink of collapse.

Yes, people are scared out of their minds, but the reason behind that is mostly not due to facts as you say. It is mostly due to speculation, scientists models and especially a political agenda, most doomsday predictions have already failed to be fulfilled, but they just keep pushing the date forward. That is the difference between religion and science (which has become a religion for many): if a religious prophet makes a prophecy and the prophecy fails to get fulfilled, he is considered a false prophet and that is it, but with science, when prophets make a prophecy and it fails, they can just claim something like there wasn't enough data and calmly make another failed prophecy; there is no accountability and they can keep doing it as long as they want. Scientism has become, in fact, a religion, and many misinformed people have raised "science" to the level of an atheistic religion. Of which the Earth is the supreme deity, and the biggest sin is being human and just existing.

Also, one could argue it goes both ways, but most of the climate activists who continuously say "listen to the scientists" are usually the most ignorant, less educated, and with no scientific background. I am not saying all of them, but the majority: Greta Thunberg, Al Gore, John Kerry, etc... the list goes on, including Bill Clinton, who is definitely a smart guy, but he is not a scientist either; he may have researched things but he is still not a scientist, and he definitely has an agenda. Those are the types who claim ridiculous stuff like "the science is settled", or "we have reached consensus", which is all nonsense of course.

The fact is that climate science has an agenda, that is undeniable. As I said before, I know what is like to have to publish papers, "publish or perish" as some here have previously mentioned. And your odds of publishing a paper for climate doom are a lot larger than if you post against it, that is just a fact. If you are against the public opinion you won't have many chances of getting your voice heard. It is like COVID, a lot of colleagues saw the opportunity during the pandemic and started publishing everything related to COVID: "A new sensor to detect COVID on water", "A procedure to bla bla COVID", it could all be BS, but if it included the word COVID in the title, you were likely to be published.

Of course you are welcome to doubt and challenge the underlying causes for the climate changes observed. And I am not even arguing against that, scepticism is necessary to a point.
But what strikes me as very bad idea, is the callousness with which a certain part of the population (mainly those who have a lot to lose and a lot to say + their underlings) simply choose to ignore and deny climate change itself and with it any approach to lessen it´s impact and the pain and terror that is inflicted on a big part of humanity. This is not looking for a solution.

First, I don't think climate change is the most pressing issue we have right now. I would say that taking most of humanity out of poverty would be one of the top priorities, but, coincidentally, that is not even in the radar of most of the elites. And of course it is not, for them, helping more humans live longer lives is not something positive, because in their minds, humans are some sort of plague in the world (except for them and their families, of course).

Also the problem is that most of the solutions being proposed are completely irrelevant for a problem that, in my opinion, doesn't even exist. What do I mean by that? Yes, climate change exists, impending doom due to climate does not. Wind and Solar, as has been proven over and over, are not true solutions. And doing stuff like cutting down 16 million trees to build wind farms is just ridiculous. What should we do then? "Just stop oil"? ridiculous. Also, all of the solutions have a Machiavellian motif behind it; do not tell me the folks at the WEF are just throwing out ideas for the sake of their good wills and hearts.

This is a long topic, which I do not intend to develop right here and now.

 

[crazydoc]

... if we allow low cost fossil fuel to be widely available, that will not hurt poor people (IMO)

But it might cause widespread destruction for us all. The crux of the matter is that you don't know, and I don't know, and nobody knows. You think it's science fiction, and I allow for the possibility that it's real, and humans should try to do as best we can to prevent possible disaster for civilization as we know it.

That's it for me.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

But it might cause widespread destruction for us all. The crux of the matter is that you don't know, and I don't know, and nobody knows.

That's the crux of it. No one knows. Yet a bunch of people in power are manipulating people with "settled science" and "scientific consensus" to radically alter society. Based on a big fat maybe. Well, maybe aliens will enslave us unless we cease all "unnatural" EM and other externally sensable emissions tomorrow! Do it for the children!

You think it's science fiction, and I allow for the possibility that it's real, and humans should try to do as best we can to prevent possible disaster for civilization as we know it.

Tradeoffs that large need a lot more solid backing, IMO. Let me know when all the big important people start making personal sacrifices "for the children."

That's it for me.

 

[JohnRoberts]

But it might cause widespread destruction for us all.

About the only scientific predictions I see that appear credible are rising sea levels, that we can adapt to. Not some existential threat that will wipe out all human life. Have you heard of a credible existential threat that I am not aware of?

The crux of the matter is that you don't know, and I don't know, and nobody knows.

I have read a lot about it for decades. Of course we need to research climate even further before some climate loon starts actively cooling the planet to save us.

You think it's science fiction, and I allow for the possibility that it's real,

I submit that there are multiple science fiction doomsday predictions that too many people conflate with reality, while they are pretty much fiction.

and humans should try to do as best we can to prevent possible disaster for civilization as we know it.

Of course we should do the best we can... the united states has already made dramatic reductions in CO2 thanks mainly from switching from coal to NG.

We could reduce CO2 even more with sensible use of nuclear energy but the public can't grasp two ideas at the same time (nuclear scary and nuclear carbon free energy).

That's it for me.

see ya around the internets

JR

 

[user 37518]

We could reduce CO2 even more with sensible use of nuclear energy but the public can't grasp two ideas at the same time (nuclear scary and nuclear carbon free energy).

Checkout Nuclear micro reactors, those are much safer, they are around the size of a medium sized truck. In my opinion, those are the future. It is better to have several of those small reactors, than big scary nuclear power plants.

 

[wlinart]

if we allow low cost fossil fuel to be widely available, that will not hurt poor people (IMO).

I read this and get what you mean. Little question: wouldn't it be better if renewable energy would be widely available (so also 24/7 without some of the troubles right now) for low cost? Wouldn't that also help poor people?

 

[ruffrecords]

But it might cause widespread destruction for us all. The crux of the matter is that you don't know, and I don't know, and nobody knows. You think it's science fiction, and I allow for the possibility that it's real, and humans should try to do as best we can to prevent possible disaster for civilization as we know it.

That's it for me.

And there is a finite chance that every time you cross the road you might get run over. The answer is not to stop crossing the road.

Cheers

Ian

 

[JohnRoberts]

Checkout Nuclear micro reactors, those are much safer, they are around the size of a medium sized truck. In my opinion, those are the future. It is better to have several of those small reactors, than big scary nuclear power plants.

and they are the past... compact nuclear reactors have been used by the navy for decades on ships. This has recently gained investment traction for civilian use but it still has to overcome the NIMBY resistance to having a nuke plant next door.

I read this and get what you mean. Little question: wouldn't it be better if renewable energy would be widely available (so also 24/7 without some of the troubles right now) for low cost? Wouldn't that also help poor people?

Of course and the trend toward renewables has been happening for years (decades). The obvious problem with wind and solar, is uncertainty of output. That is the nice thing about nuclear, it's 24x7 and relatively inexpensive.

I could imagine a future with solar roof shingles and better home insulation but these are not here-now cheap solutions that poor people can use.

JR