Deaths from climate change

[JohnRoberts]

There are at least a couple of well researched and presented debunks / rebuttals of that Koonin book online. I haven't read it so I don't really want to get involved in a discussion about it, but it does not appear to be quite as authoritative as it's made out to be.

Of the three authors, I consider the Koonin book to be the least impeachable since he mostly debunks unfounded climate conclusions with UN and government data. His book is full of charts and graphs. That activity creates a long list of high profile spokespeople who are reflexively compelled to discredit him instead of admitting their own false narratives.

If anything I am seeing an increase in fake climate news recently, in part supporting the new climate spending bill.

JR

 

[crazydoc]

"False narratives and fake climate news." Lets have some concrete examples instead of "read the book." There should be plenty of online examples you can point to. (I've read several well presented rebuttals to the Koonin book.)

 

[JohnRoberts]

I see them so often when reading the WSJ that I don't bother complaining. Most common is conflating short term weather events with climate change. Climate is weather averaged over 30 years or so.

One recent one was an article suggesting that climate change was shifting the hurricane season earlier, ignoring that there was a January hurricane back in 1938(?). Almost coincidentally another article noted the slow start to this years hurricane season which typically hits right about now. I hope I am not temping fate and inviting a strong hurricane into the Gulf. That would not be good for gas supply with all the refineries down there.

If you want I can start sharing more examples, but there are lots of them recently.

POTUS made news during a speech supporting his climate change legislation blaming it for him having cancer (he apparently "had" skin cancer years ago).

The acute impact of climate change on human health is receiving increased attention, but little is known or appreciated about the effect of climate change on chronic diseases, particularly cancer.

This reminds me of all the drama surrounding the ozone layer and freon use. Climate change causing cancer is certainly an effective scare tactic.

===

I don't consider it a good use of my time but I will try to provide more smoking gun examples. Once you learn what to look for they are everywhere.

JR

 

[crazydoc]

Most common is conflating short term weather events with climate change.

Of course that is BS, epitomized by the congress rep who brought a snowball to his floor speech.

I see them so often when reading the WSJ that I don't bother complaining.

I'm talking about published peer reviewed studies showing that climate change is not occurring.. Articles in the published popular media are always to be taken with a grain or more of salt.

And yes, the occurrence of certain types of skin cancer is related to sun exposure, but I agree it's a nonsensical stretch to blame that on current levels, but who knows about the future?

 

[JohnRoberts]

Of course that is BS, epitomized by the congress rep who brought a snowball to his floor speech.

thank you... politics is a very short time horizon exercise. The new climate (I mean anti-inflation) bill includes a slush fund for government to pick new climate industry winners. We should recall "Solyndra" (sp?) and other taxpayer funded black holes, funded during the Obama administration. Government is lousy at creating or managing new technology.

I'm talking about published peer reviewed studies showing that climate change is not occurring.. Articles in the published popular media are always to be taken with a grain or more of salt.

But that is not the issue. That the earth is warming is an objective fact. That human activity at least contributes to that in some fraction is also widely conceded.

The crux of the disagreement is how do we humans respond? Shutting down cheap and plentiful fossil fuels before we have a practical replacement will impose a huge cost on all of us. We are already seeing unintended consequences from too aggressive anti-fossil fuels climate policies. (should I cite these?).

And yes, the occurrence of certain types of skin cancer is related to sun exposure, but I agree it's a nonsensical stretch to blame that on current levels, but who knows about the future?

In fact moderate sun exposure is healthy (Kime wrote a classic book on the subject) but of course too much sun exposure is a bad thing.

JR

PS: The climate change denier debunkers have already pivoted to characterize the opposition as not denying the temperature changes, but denying that the government remedies will work. I resemble that characterization. We need the wealth from cheap and plentiful fossil fuels to fund the adaption we need to execute to prosper despite global warming over the coming centuries. Wasting the world's wealth on pet climate projects will do far more harm than good for the world's poor.

 

[Matador]

Shutting down cheap and plentiful fossil fuels before we have a practical replacement will impose a huge cost on all of us.

If fossil fuels are cheap and plentiful (exactly as they have been for the past 150 years), what exactly is the financial incentive to find a practical replacement? Why hasn't the free market solved this problem over the last century?

 

[scott2000]

Why hasn't the free market solved this problem over the last century?

Good question

 

[AnalogPackrat]

If fossil fuels are cheap and plentiful (exactly as they have been for the past 150 years), what exactly is the financial incentive to find a practical replacement? Why hasn't the free market solved this problem over the last century?

Do we not have electric cars for people who want them? Has battery and electric motor tech not advanced? Big question is why reliable and relatively compact nuclear power generation has been allowed to languish in the US. Why are we wasting billions on fusion research while very little is spent on pragmatic Thorium cycle fission? All of the additional power has to come from somewhere and it must be baseline.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Do we not have electric cars for people who want them? Has battery and electric motor tech not advanced? Big question is why reliable and relatively compact nuclear power generation has been allowed to languish in the US. Why are we wasting billions on fusion research while very little is spent on pragmatic Thorium cycle fission? All of the additional power has to come from somewhere and it must be baseline.

I find it instructive that premium EV makers including Ford's EV pickup truck, have raised their retail prices roughly the amount of the new tax credit ($7500). I guess that's our new "inflation reduction" act at work.

JR

 

[crazydoc]

I find it instructive that premium EV makers including Ford's EV pickup truck, have raised their retail prices roughly the amount of the new tax credit ($7500). I guess that's our new "inflation reduction" act at work.

JR

I too find it instructive showing how capitalist industry rapes the consumer for their own profit.

 

[crazydoc]

But that is not the issue. That the earth is warming is an objective fact. That human activity at least contributes to that in some fraction is also widely conceded.

I think there are a lot of deniers out there who disagree.

The crux of the disagreement is how do we humans respond? Shutting down cheap and plentiful fossil fuels before we have a practical replacement will impose a huge cost on all of us. We are already seeing unintended consequences from too aggressive anti-fossil fuels climate policies. (should I cite these?).

Sure, making significant changes to our energy sources is going to cause problems. But not doing so may cause more devastating problems. As I said before, pick your poison. I'd pick reduction of greenhouse gas production ASAP.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I think there are a lot of deniers out there who disagree.

I will agree with you that they are wrong... The globe has been warming and cooling forever. Human influence seems small but real.

Sure, making significant changes to our energy sources is going to cause problems. But not doing so may cause more devastating problems. As I said before, pick your poison. I'd pick reduction of greenhouse gas production ASAP.

We need to be clear minded and thoughtful about this calculus (tradeoff). IMO Low cost plentiful energy is not the problem but the solution to help us pay for adapting to climate change over the next century and more. Shutting down fossil fuels while throwing hundreds of billions of tax dollars at EV subsidies is mainly a short term feel good political exercise that won't bump the thermometer. One might speculate that they are seeking winning campaign issues to use in a couple months.

Nations with large populations of poor citizens, like India and China are building lots of new coal fired power plants. Alternately we are shutting them down. I don't think those nations hate the planet***, but they seem unwilling to sacrifice the welfare of their poorest citizens for some hypothetical distant future risk scenario.


JR

*** I can't read their minds but POTUS and a number of politicians have declared climate change an existential risk. I do not consider them credible. It is a common political strategy to gin up some scary bogeyman common threat to unify voters against.

 

[JohnRoberts]

For another example of "everything is caused by climate change" false conclusions from the front page of today's WSJ "worldwide droughts are up 20% since 2000 due to land degradation, and "CLIMATE CHANGE", This constant drumbeat of "faux science" sways the low STEM voters. At least we should have enough scientific literacy to see through the proselytizing. While I suspect some here think that is what I am doing.

JR

 

[cyrano]

The low STEM voters don't believe in climate change, in my experience...

 

[user 41968]

https://www.zerohedge.com/weather/greta-thunberg-cult-has-gone-bust-sky-news

Greta Thunberg's guilt-trip climate shame tour appears to have hit the wall, as green pipe dreams with zero practical solutions meet the realities of, well, reality.

Or, as Sky News Australia's Andrew Bolt puts it; "A mere child, full of rage, obsessed with doom, totally devoid of any practical solutions – but here she was lecturing the world on how to fuel their 21st century economies."

Over the past year, Thunberg's movement - described by Bolt as a "cult" - has fizzled out. "Thunberg is now a victim of her own success in scaring people into doing very, very stupid things that we're now paying for."

 

[user 41968]

It's a scam. They dump aluminum and a bunch of other toxins in the upper atmosphere, blame you, and some of you are gullible enough to believe you're the problem. YOU are the carbon they want to eliminate...

 

[crazydoc]

 

[user 37518]

The low STEM voters don't believe in climate change, in my experience...

In all honesty, what do you mean with "low STEM voters" and exactly what is believing in climate change? This is the problem with speculative science, basically there are always reasons that can be found to refute the other side because there is no solid proof of either posture. I have already mentioned this in the past, but science is not a voting system, the ad populum fallacy is something very common, I already gave examples of this in previous posts.

 

[JohnRoberts]

In all honesty, what do you mean with "low STEM voters"

since I injected that comment, I mean people lacking scientific understanding and critical thinking.

and exactly what is believing in climate change?

As I have long pointed out, climate change is an objective fact so difficult to not believe...

This is the problem with speculative science, basically there are always reasons that can be found to refute the other side because there is no solid proof of either posture. I have already mentioned this in the past, but science is not a voting system, the ad populum fallacy is something very common, I already gave examples of this in previous posts.

+1 you are clearly not the low STEM voter I alluded to.

JR

 

[user 37518]

As I have long pointed out, climate change is an objective fact so difficult to not believe...

John, the reason I ask about what is meant with "believing in climate change" is due to the fact that, yes, climate change is an objective fact, but most of the time when people say that someone doesn't believe in climate change, they actually mean that they don't believe that all hell will break loose, there will be fire and brimstone falling from the skies, and world destruction in a matter of a few decades. Its the hidden meaning behind the words that I want to know.