Deaths from climate change

[cyrano]

It's kinda hard to do anything without influencing something...

 

[JohnRoberts]

It's kinda hard to do anything without influencing something...

but there is a concerted effort to influence the public with scary (exaggerated) scenarios about the future of our planet.

Scaring the sierra out of our young children who are already struggling with enough uncertainty already due to substandard classroom environments, seems like an unintended consequence worth actively avoiding. Some might argue it is malpractice. Children should be a priority not collateral damage, or tools to be pointed at their parents to sway them for political ends.

JR

 

[Matador]

Scaring the sierra out of our young children who are already struggling with enough uncertainty already due to substandard classroom environments, seems like an unintended consequence worth actively avoiding. Some might argue it is malpractice. Children should be a priority not collateral damage, or tools to be pointed at their parents to sway them for political ends.

This is the new climate change hot take? That the idea of climate change is worse than climate change itself?

 

[JohnRoberts]

This is the new climate change hot take? That the idea of climate change is worse than climate change itself?

it is in fact not new, but properly stated the "government response to climate change can easily be worse than effects of climate change". Making energy more expensive will harm (kill?) more poor people around the world than any hypothetical long term benefit to mother earth. I could recommend some authoritative books on the subject but IIRC I'm pretty sure I already have.
===
Today I am instead pointing out the IMO real risk of harm to adolescents from hyperbolic fear mongering about existential climate disaster. Kids are already suffering from reduced human contact thanks to masking in schools and reduced attendance. Their brains are malleable and don't need to be scared any more than they already are by the normal life stresses of growing up.

Suicide is the second-leading cause of death among people age 15 to 24 in the U.S. Nearly 20% of high school students report serious thoughts of suicide and 9% have made an attempt to take their lives, according to the National Alliance on Mental Illness.

I think accidents are leading COD for that age group.

I don't claim that Hyperbolic claims about climate change is solely responsible but these fragile children don't need more stress. This is not some new political hot take but mentioned in passing by Dr Drew Pinsky as a valid concern. He seems credible to me in this area of adolescent mental health (while I'm sure he has detractors for not being PC enough).


JR

 

[user 41968]

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopoliti...-are-self-destructive-also-part-bigger-agenda

For emissions targets to be met by 2030, drastic society-changing events will have to take place within the next eight years. The very fabric of our current trade system and the global supply chain will have to be torn to shreds and replaced with an exceedingly limited production model. Not only that, but the human population would have to be reduced by billions. This model will be artificially contained within arbitrary climate guidelines set by unelected governing bodies in the name of stopping environmental changes that have not been proven to be caused by human beings at all. What it accomplishes is the formation of an authoritarian framework, one that the globalists will say is “environmentally justified.”

 

[JohnRoberts]

I like to take a kinder gentler approach and presume most climate activists are well intentioned just poorly informed. It appears that sundry fringe ideologies have hooked their carts up to this crazy train. There are even some wingnuts slicing SUV tires "to save the planet". That could be very bad for their personal health in many areas of the country. I wonder if being shot while slashing tires in protest would be classified as death from climate change?

I remain optimistic that we will figure it all out before we kill the golden goose (cheap energy) that has fueled so much economic growth, and lifted so many out of poverty.

JR

 

[Matador]

 

[boji]

https://www.google.com/search?q=klaus+schwab+vader+suit

 

[iturnknobs]

There are even some wingnuts slicing SUV tires "to save the planet".

I challenge you to a game of "whataboutism". We'll see who comes up with more instances.

Anti-Tesla pickup truck drivers take over a Supercharger station again

 

[JohnRoberts]

pass

JR

 

[cyrano]

but there is a concerted effort to influence the public with scary (exaggerated) scenarios about the future of our planet.

There's not, John.

There's some sensationalism in the press. Clickbait. But that's true for most things the press deems noteworthy.

Scaring the sierra out of our young children who are already struggling with enough uncertainty already due to substandard classroom environments, seems like an unintended consequence worth actively avoiding. Some might argue it is malpractice. Children should be a priority not collateral damage, or tools to be pointed at their parents to sway them for political ends.

JR

Believe me, most young people don't need to be scared. They know very well how bad things are. What does drive them nuts, on occasion, are the old folk who don't seem to be able to see the problem.

Anyone who observes nature, will have seen strong changes in their lifetime. Wether these are manmade, is another story. But from those I've personally seen happen, around 99% were manmade.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I am surely repeating myself, but so are you.

1-"Unsettled" by Stephen Koonin is an authoritative debunking of unsubstantiated conclusions offered by climate experts. Koonin's book is made even more powerful because he uses UN and Government climate data to disprove the false climate claims, often tacked onto reports where the data does not support the conclusions.

2-"False Alarm" by Bjorn Lomborg presents a more reasoned economic analysis of risk from climate change, and costs of proposed responses.

3-"Fossil Future" by Alex Epstein takes up where Lomborg left off with cost benefit/harm from proposed climate responses.

I haven't finished reading the Epstein book, but saw him debate a climate change advocate on a cspan book review show. He seems to have his head screwed on right IMO.

I have offered to share the first two books that I have already finished reading, for any who are openminded enough to test their beliefs. I need to hold onto the Epstein book until I finish reading it, but its on my stack of unfinished books.

JR

 

[crazydoc]

Just as in the pandemic, we can all believe that which is most convenient, not necessarily that which is reality. For me, reality is the increase in energy trapping by mother earth, and that increased energy will have effects, some apparent already and some which we cannot guess yet. But reality is that earth is heating up, for whatever reasons, and where it will end is anybody's guess, but I for one doubt it will be beneficial to humans.

Plain Language Summary​

Climate is determined by how much of the sun's energy the Earth absorbs and how much energy Earth sheds through emission of thermal infrared radiation. Their sum determines whether Earth heats up or cools down. Continued increases in concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and the long time-scales time required for the ocean, cryosphere, and land to come to thermal equilibrium with those increases result in a net gain of energy, hence warming, on Earth. Most of this excess energy (about 90%) warms the ocean, with the remainder heating the land, melting snow and ice, and warming the atmosphere. Here we compare satellite observations of the net radiant energy absorbed by Earth with a global array of measurements used to determine heating within the ocean, land and atmosphere, and melting of snow and ice. We show that these two independent approaches yield a decadal increase in the rate of energy uptake by Earth from mid-2005 through mid-2019, which we attribute to decreased reflection of energy back into space by clouds and sea-ice and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases and water vapor.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL093047

 

[JohnRoberts]

Just as in the pandemic, we can all believe that which is most convenient, not necessarily that which is reality. For me, reality is the increase in energy trapping by mother earth, and that increased energy will have effects, some apparent already and some which we cannot guess yet. But reality is that earth is heating up, for whatever reasons, and where it will end is anybody's guess, but I for one doubt it will be beneficial to humans.

The earth warming is an objective fact that nobody (?) disputes. As I have shared that is the hook for a fast thinking/slow thinking logical trap. A) The earth is warming (truth), B) therefore we must ....... stop driving cars (unproved) or whatever over the top remedy offered without critical analysis.

Plain Language Summary​

Climate is determined by how much of the sun's energy the Earth absorbs and how much energy Earth sheds through emission of thermal infrared radiation. Their sum determines whether Earth heats up or cools down. Continued increases in concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and the long time-scales time required for the ocean, cryosphere, and land to come to thermal equilibrium with those increases result in a net gain of energy, hence warming, on Earth. Most of this excess energy (about 90%) warms the ocean, with the remainder heating the land, melting snow and ice, and warming the atmosphere. Here we compare satellite observations of the net radiant energy absorbed by Earth with a global array of measurements used to determine heating within the ocean, land and atmosphere, and melting of snow and ice. We show that these two independent approaches yield a decadal increase in the rate of energy uptake by Earth from mid-2005 through mid-2019, which we attribute to decreased reflection of energy back into space by clouds and sea-ice and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases and water vapor.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL093047

Thanks while that is only looking at one or two variables, global climate is far more complex, but that is not the actual point of disagreement. The issue is what do we do about the earth warming that is an objective fact? Too severe of a remedy will do far more harm than allowing it to warm a couple degrees over the next century. Lomborg even puts numbers on the GDP growth cost from different climate mitigation strategies. There is a modest GDP growth cost to doing nothing. The heavy lifting involves figuring out the right balance. A full press attack on the fossil fuel industry like we are now experiencing will clearly do more harm than good.

The hard part is figuring out what exactly to do, but I haven't heard a thoughtful discussion yet coming from those in power. President Biden is about to declare a climate "emergency" using executive action because congress doesn't want to pass his "climate" spending bill. A climate emergency declared because of the heat apocalypse (AKA weather). This is typical political maneuvering. Be very afraid, but you can trust me I'm from the government..

JR

 

[user 41968]

While you guys argue esoteric "intellectual" BS your food and energy are being deliberately cut off.

You are being culled from the "herd."

YOU are the carbon they want to eliminate.

Wake the hell up.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

There's not, John.

There absolutely is. It really got wound up with hypocritical Al ****'s movie.

There's some sensationalism in the press. Clickbait. But that's true for most things the press deems noteworthy.

No, there's a concerted effort with obvious bias.

Believe me, most young people don't need to be scared. They know very well how bad things are. What does drive them nuts, on occasion, are the old folk who don't seem to be able to see the problem.

We don't let teenagers vote for good reason. Even young adults lack life experience which makes it difficult for them to judge current events. I don't know how old you are, but I cringe when I look back at some things I absolutely believed when I was in my 20s. At that age you really don't know what you don't know.

Anyone who observes nature, will have seen strong changes in their lifetime. Wether these are manmade, is another story. But from those I've personally seen happen, around 99% were manmade.

I've been to beaches in FL, SC, NC, ME, CA, OR over my 56 trips around the sun and haven't seen any significant sea level change. Obviously people like Obama and Zuckerberg aren't worried or they wouldn't have spent tens of millions on seaside mansions/properties. I believe it was JR who used to say "watch their feet not their lips" or something to that effect.

I'm old enough to remember "the next ice age is beginning" all over news, magazines, and books. It isn't clear that humans actually understand what's going on, but it does seem that our outsized hubris makes us believe various theories we've made up from incomplete data and knowledge.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

While you guys argue esoteric "intellectual" BS your food and energy are being deliberately cut off.

Be ready to grow your own.

You are being culled from the "herd."

YOU are the carbon they want to eliminate.

Come and take it.

Wake the hell up.

I am. Klaus' fancy Klingon outfit doesn't impress me.

 

[scott2000]

I've been to beaches in FL, SC, NC, ME, CA, OR over my 56 trips around the sun and haven't seen any significant sea level change. Obviously people like Obama and Zuckerberg aren't worried or they wouldn't have spent tens of millions on seaside mansions/properties.

When working up in St Augustine it was fascinating to see the Army Corps of Engineers' dredging project that went on for many months 24/7. They have huge dredgers that take sand from intercoastals miles away and pump tons of sand along the beaches. Crazy to see the 15' high x 50'-100'+ deep sand disappear within several months when visiting later. I was talking with a local cleaning lady and she was telling me it happens every several years. They come in and do the same thing. Wonder how widespread this is.

 

[fazer]

Crazy to see the 15' high x 50'-100'+ deep sand disappear

Wasn’t it some guy named Fisher that built all the ultra rich islands with bridges and gated entrances around Miami back in the 20s and 30s. His line was,” wine-em dine-em and sign-em”. As he created real estate in the bay. Those houses have been at the same elevation level for 100 years.

 

[scott2000]

Those houses have been at the same elevation level for 100 years.

Yeah... There are some really old houses right on the beaches. The one I was at was like working on a boat before the dredging happened. You'd look out the windows and all you could see was water even at low tide. After the dredging, you could see plenty of beach. It was wild. Just fascinating and curious what they are doing and how widespread it is....