Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

what that age I really kind of liked it because it got me out of heaven to sit in class and read.

for a lot of them are young they don't realize they've been lied to. And in all fairness My generation has been really bad about letting them know that hey this is a liar and don't believe it they lied to us the same lies they're telling you the world was supposed to end dozens of times by now and it didn't.

But I guess they'll figure it out.

 

In what ways are people benefitting from climate change?

 

Well, for example, human mortality related to temperature is decreasing as warming occurs. Warmer weather/climate reduces all cause mortality compared to cooler weather/climate.

Extreme cold temperature events are decreasing faster than extreme heat events are increasing, so overall extreme weather events are net decreasing.

Agricultural production benefits from warmer temps (and increased precipitation in most cases).

I produce your food and raw materials to make everything from your spark plugs to candles to cosmetics to paint. As production of those things becomes more efficient, you benefit as a consumer of all those products.

That answer your question?

 

There are more heat related deaths worldwide than deaths from cold. The agricultural comment is way oversimplified. A link might be helpful. In interviews with farmers, there is a massive amount of concern about the changing climate. And a conclusion that there will be more production, when there is one multi-billion dollar catastrophe after another, along with the associated refugees seems totally false.

 

I’m a farmer and I just finished checking cows for the last time on my night shift (my wife does
early morning checks) so am headed to bed. So let’s start with heat related deaths. Your opinion conflicts with evidence.



I’m happy to educate. Few are aware of the facts pertaining to this subject. But I prefer to look at the actual science when it comes to climate change instead of basing my opinions on “recent deaths” reported in the news. News media is a poor source for information on climate change. The media is not reporting that cold kills orders of magnitude more than heat and warming is decreasing net mortality.

Let’s see how your opinions stack up against large scale peer reviewed studies of temp related mortality.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.do...res-kill-5-million-a-year-20-year-study-77875

This leads to net reduction in mortality. Warming is saving far more lives from reduced cold than are dying from excess heat.


https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2542-5196(21)00081-4

Then there is another large study that looked at suboptimal temps in relation to severity as well as justheat/cold.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext

So we see temperatures that are cooler than optimal for humans kills Seventeen times as many people as temperatures that are warmer than ideal.

Also, we see from this study, extreme heat kills less than all other categories, yet it is reported on in the media as the greatest threat. All other categories including extreme cold and especially moderate cold kill far more.



Isn’t real science amazing? Real science shows your narrative is patently false and diametrically opposed to empirical evidence. A warming planet will save MANY lives by decreasing the massive death loss from below optimal temperatures.

Between 2000 and 2019 the warming trend has decreased temp related mortality 0.3% already! Because mortality from cooler than optimal temperatures is decreasing much faster than increasing mortality from hotter than optimal temperatures this will persist for a VERY long time as today cold related temperatures kill at least 17times as many as heat related.

That’s just a fact. And a fact virtually unknown in the demographic posting about deaths from global warming.

Of course there are regional studies as well. From the CDC.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25073563/

Humans are not cold adapted. Cardiovascular deaths increase when it’s cold. Rates of cardiovascular deaths are far higher when it’s cold than when it’s hot. The human body is just better at handling warmer temps than we see today than temps cooler than today. It’s a biological fact.

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.061832

The temperature in New England USA is rising as faster than most places on earth. Yet even at the highest end of projected warming, lives will be saved by warming.

https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/9/12/176/htm

Yet when we look at the future under RCP 8.5 in New England we project more healthcare needed but fewer overall deaths towards the end of this century.



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5980746/#:~:text=This approach also assumes that,to increased adaptation to heat.

So an area with some of the fastest climate change on the planet, and warming will still be saving over 200 lives annually in the tiny state of RI under RCP 8.5 at the turn of the century! Science is so much more interesting than people’s unsubstantiated opinions!

Even in tropical/subtropical environments, cold is the real threat, not warmer temps.

https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/38/6/1689/667818#:~:text=Every 1°C decrease,any of the lags examined

I don’t operate on “what seems”. I prefer peer reviewed studies in respected journals of science when it comes to climate science.

 

What an excellent video. Good that deniers are down to 15%.
We need to make the fight against it a more positive message to switch the people away from the doomers.
The reason the UK ended up with Brexit was in great part to the fact that remain camp focused only on the dangers of leaving rather than the advantages of staying in the EU.
We need to recognise this. And promote a cleaner planet because "That is in itself a good thing"

 

That's a lot of info about one topic, which I'll refute with National Weather Service data (2017) below, which discusses the potential for future heat-related death increases due to climate chane. And you ignored the instability in the world (refugees, etc) that will be caused by climate change.

https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Which-Kills-More-People-Extreme-Heat-or-Extreme-Cold

 

I'm not positive, but that doesn't sound like an effective plan!

And, Trump is the Adolf Hitler here.

 

No it would be the environmentalists they're just green Nazis. They're the ones that want to dictate what you drive where do you live how far away you can go what you eat.

 

Yep! I think scientists have done a piss poor job of getting the message across about climate change, mind you they were swimming uphill against a well funded PR campaign that had a well written “playbook” for misinformation

 

Ah yes. The non peer reviewed report on extreme events by media sources. Let’s have a look at a paper on that.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/86/7/bams-86-7-937.xml

So we see NWS limits their reporting to only extreme events. Actual peer reviewed global studies I’ve presented above include all cold and heat related deaths, not just extreme events that only account for a small fraction of all temperature related deaths.

And when we look at the data for NWS reports we see it is based on “Storm Data” data sets that are just counts of how many times media sources report on types of deaths.

On the other hand, the peer reviewed studies above use actual coded all cause mortality deaths from official records.

The NWS graph is not based on actual evidence but on counts of media stories on weather.

I did not ignore anything. The large scale studies I’ve presented use all cause mortality so capture all deaths related to temp, even ones where refugees get trampled trying to escape a disaster.

Also, as I stated, overall, heat and cold extreme disasters are decreasing overall.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00404-x

Ok. Let’s get down to brass tacks. I made a claim and supported it with global data. You made this claim.

You presented a graph from the NWS of extreme only events taken from media reports, not actual coded deaths. This pull quote is from your source.

We see your cite only addresses deaths where? In US media reports. No data at all on global deaths which is YOUR claim.

Please substantiate your claims as I have done.

Again, my posts are based on peer reviewed studies by climatologists. Hopefully you can present some evidence more compelling than biased media data your own cite presents as biased and not based on application of the scientific method.

 

There aren't, actually. The post you replied to has the facts correctly framed. More folks globally die from cold exposure. Facts. More, food and agricultural production has benefited greatly from a climate that has moderated. More arable lands available to take advantage of better food production techniques is providing vastly more, and better food throughout the world.

To be frank, folks like me, and others here who challenge the AGW narrative don't do it because we don't know that climate could change, in fact the opposite. We understand that climate changes. It has, it does, it will. And what seems remarkable about folks, like you, who rail against climate changing is that somehow, you believe that it would be better if it never changed. Your, and others like you, position is that we must stop the climate from change. I'd ask you why? And further, since you demand it doesn't change, doesn't that make you the denier of climate change? Perhaps denier isn't the best choice of word, but demander that climate doesn't change seems more accurate, but doesn't sufficiently encapsulate the world view you seem to support.

Think about it this way. Fear mongering of folks, like you, in the AGW camp isn't designed to actually stop climates from changing. Far from it. It's a money wealth transfer scheme. Cooked up by the nice folks at Goldman Sachs. And marketed by invested members of the ownership of these "carbon markets" that simply look for how better to make money off of nice folks around the developed world so they can use that money to develop the non developed world. What in that equation equates to actually stopping the climate from changing? If, as folks like John Kerry who uses private aviation like it's going out of style to jet around the globe spewing the equivalent of thousands of average US families CO2 output for a year in the process, are given a pass, again by folks like you, who would rather take the emotional approach and fear and then demand others be afraid like you, all the while ignoring the obvious facts right in front of your face. These folks don't care about the climate, just their future annuity that carbon swaps or futures markets will enrich them. At the expense of all of the rest of us.

 

So sad. Climate scientists are hurting your pocketbook. Perhaps you better check your investments? After all, Bidenomics is hitting new highs in the market daily.

 

Let’s have a look at SCIENCE related to agriculture. First, there is often concern about arid regions. Let’s look at productivity changes in arid regions as temps increase.

https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg2/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FullReport.pdf

Some studies on agriculture production are flawed in that they do not account for adaption by producers. Here’s a glimpse of what scientists predict global scope of agriculture going forward. From scientists that understand agricultural producers always adapt. That we have been adapting since the dawn of agriculture and we won’t stop. When growing seasons lengthen we plant genetics that yield more in longer growing seasons. When precipitation increases we plant genetics that are targeted to benefit from more precipitation.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-34411-5

I see the Aussie is “liking” your posts. Let’s look at wheat yields in Australia just for fun.


Let’s look at what scientists say about Australian wheat yields increasing with climate change. Typically scientists that have specialties in agronomy know more about agriculture than politicians.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096321000292

Improving yields of Australian wheat with warming climate has a long history. This study was published in 1997 and looked at climate impacts on Australian wheat yields since the 1950’s.

https://www.nature.com/articles/387484a0#:~:text=Climate trends appear to be,temperatures being the dominant influence.

We can look at the UK as well. Wheat is one of the most important food crops on the planet.

https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/13/1377/2022/

You referenced journalism in your posts multiple times. The data the NWS uses is media stories. You talk about journalist’s interviewing some unidentified farmer as well.

I prefer evidence obtained by application of the scientific method to what journalists and their interviewees say. If the evidence isn’t founded on peer reviewed published research I’m not particularly interested in it. Climate science should involve science, not just unsubstantiated opinions of journalists.

 

Hmmmm. I’m getting the message from scientists. I post the evidence they produce through application of the scientific method hand over fist. The problem is most people rely on journalists, not scientists for information.

 

Let’s look at “billion dollar catastrophes”.

Again, peer reviewed studies is where I look. Not journalists.

Economic loss from disasters as percentage of GDP is falling. So alarmists are wrong on economic impacts as well as deaths from disasters. The climate is becoming more suitable for humanity.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ful...8.1540343?scroll=top&needAccess=true&role=tab

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378019300378

Again, what “seems totally false” to you is irrelevant. Evidence produced by application of the scientific method snd published in peer reviewed journals takes precedence if we are really going to discuss climate “science”.

 

Since when are Goldman Sachs (financial institution) and John Kerry (politician) climate scientists?

SMH.

 

Like most of intelligent America, they are listening to the experts - the Climate Scientists.

 

Hmmm. Apparently not because their opinions (like yours) conflict with evidence produced through the scientific method.

 

I have BS in Electrical Engineering. Spent my working career in the Sciences. Your analysis is lacking in reality.

 

LOL. My analysis?

 

Interesting admission!

 

It’s a question. I’ve presented no analysis. Just evidence.

Are questions now admissions of something?

You think I should appeal to the authority of a random guy claiming to to be an engineer instead of accepting peer reviewed research ftom respected journals of science? I quoted the IPCC for crying out loud. I’m not an IPCC contributor. How is an IPCC report my analysis?

Nutty stuff ya’ll post. Never any evidence but plenty of fallacies.

 

I'm glad you're reading the IPCC.

I don't see claims that the "disaster" is going to come in some single year - it's a gradually growing expense. And, wealthy countries like the US are better able to deal with it as it grows. Will India be able to deal with it? China? Pakistan?

It's just that what we do today will affect our future as well as that of Earth.

 

I’ve always read the IPCC. That’s why I can quote the reports instead of just putting up a generic link. Remember I’m the guy who reads about climate science from all sources, not just ones a political party or journalist approves of.

What does disaster in a single year have to do with ANYTHING I’ve posted? Be specific. Use the PF quote function.

Yes what we do affects the climate and our future. In ways you and others can’t even imagine. That’s why I’m here showing you guys actual science instead of the false narratives you’ve been led to believe.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ful...8.1540343?scroll=top&needAccess=true&role=tab

Yes, other countries are more able to deal with your “expenses” as well as the US. Globally, cost of disasters as percentage of GDP is decreasing.

More science to conflict with your opinions! Isn’t science great?