Climate deaths drop despite population growth

[Ozyorkbourne]

Taken from Bjorn Lomborg's twitter:

It would seem that despite climate change alarm-ism, humans are doing pretty well. Not only have we proven that we can adapt, we have shown we can develop and engineer the technology to deal with climate change. Further, the costs involved with climate related GDP losses has also declined:


Hopefully this will finally put to bed the silly notion that climate change will destroy the planet and we can focus on more pressing and immediate issues.

Climate and disaster related deaths have declined due to advancements in human technology, which ironically has come at the expense of the environment. Warning systems, flood defenses, relocation of settlements at risk and tremendous amounts of foreign aid have done this despite the on going threat of our drastically changing climate which unless we learn to adapt to, since those such as yourself refuse to mitigate it.

[Vankrys]

Confounding factors? Yeah you will need to spell that out.

- - - Updated - - -



Animals and plants become extinct all the time, and not always because of climate change or because of humans.

Again, what is your expertise in the domain? what are your credential? why should we place our survival in your capable hand? Give us some confidence in you and your conclusion. Otherwise, i'm going to believe the world 97% highly qualified experts in the domain.

[Garnier Fructis]

Confounding means to confuse. I think you meant a different word. Did you perhaps meant conflicting?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding

Not quite the correct usage, but it should be clear what's meant.

[Torto]

Yeah, because back in the 1920s societal infrastructure was built to be as disaster-resilient as they were today.

People at that point also rubbed their magic crystal balls in stead of google so they could see how people handled disasters in the future.



But really, it takes stubbornly disingenuous alt-righters like Torto to spin "humanity has increasingly adapted to climate change due to ongoing liberal efforts to educate and push for necessary social infrastructure" into "climate change is a liberal fearmongering conspiracy to instill paranoia of planet destruction to control the populace.

Do you believe climate change has gotten worse or not since 1920? Do you think we have pumped more or less CO2 into the atmosphere since 1920? Despite all that the effects has lessened even the population has increased four fold. You can't have it both ways, either we have dealt with the effects of climate change or it was never real in the first place.

[Xarkan]

I assume you know who Bjorn Lomborg is....

Do you?

Because his argument may not be what you think it is.

[Tierbook]

The idea that we should stop trying to help the environment because we are fine is silly. The argument that if we don't help the environment we'll all die is sillier.

[Tierbook]

Nobody is actually making the second argument though.

Well, not in this thread at least.

[cparle87]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding

Not quite the correct usage, but it should be clear what's meant.

Ooh. I'd never heard of it being used in this context before. Learn something new every day.

[PC2]

So climate change is real, humans are doing it and it's a bad thing. But that's okay because we can adapt so let's keep doing it anyway?

Yeah we're going to keep using fossil fuels for multiple decades since renewable energy isn't mature yet. It's simply a fact that civilization will have to adapt to a ~3 degree avg temp change over the long run.

[Vankrys]

I assume you know who Bjorn Lomborg is....

In January 2003, the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty DCSD released a ruling that sent a mixed message, finding the book to be scientifically dishonest through misrepresentation of scientific facts, but Lomborg himself not guilty due to his lack of expertise in the fields in question.

[Garnier Fructis]

"Lack of expertise" may as well be a badge of fucking honor among skeptics.

[Torto]

Again, what is your expertise in the domain? what are your credential? why should we place our survival in your capable hand? Give us some confidence in you and your conclusion. Otherwise, i'm going to believe the world 97% highly qualified experts in the domain.

I've watch David Attenborough nature shows so I'm an expert. I stated animals and plants become extinct all the time, I didn't realise you needed a degree in science to state the obvious.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you?

Because his argument may not be what you think it is.

Is he making an argument? Looks like he is stating some statistics to me.

[PC2]

Do you believe climate change has gotten worse or not since 1920? Do you think we have pumped more or less CO2 into the atmosphere since 1920? Despite all that the effects has lessened even the population has increased four fold. You can't have it both ways, either we have dealt with the effects of climate change or it was never real in the first place.

Where is the "better" option? CO2 going up to 400+PPM has increased yield for many crops.

[Vankrys]

I've watch David Attenborough nature shows so I'm an expert. I stated animals and plants become extinct all the time, I didn't realise you needed a degree in science to state the obvious.

Dude, you literally said on your first post.

Hopefully this will finally put to bed the silly notion that climate change will destroy the planet and we can focus on more pressing and immediate issues.

Sorry to offend your sensibility but ...

I don't know you, and I do not trust your conclusions.

[Torto]

Where is the "better" option? CO2 going up to 400+PPM has increased yield for many crops.

With CO2 levels continually dropping in the US, you guys will have to start burning coal just to feed the trees.

- - - Updated - - -

Dude, you literally said on your first post.



Sorry to offend your sensibility but ...

I don't know you, and I do not trust your conclusions.

Well I didn't realise you were quoting the original post. My conclusion is based of the the graphs in the op which is not my work. You can draw your own conclusions, I just stated mine.

[Vankrys]

Well I didn't realise you were quoting the original post. My conclusion is based of the the graphs in the op which is not my work. You can draw your own conclusions, I just stated mine.

It's fine to have an opinion, but sorry, you seem to be very closed to others opinions, as well as closed to learn more about the science behind climatology.

You don't need to go back to the university too, the information is plentiful everywhere, if you are truly honest about the desire to learn.
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_n...ds=climatology

[Ramahan]

I assume you know who Bjorn Lomborg is....

Actually, most of us do know who he is and know that all his degrees are in Political Science and not Environmental Science. That his main focus has been the theory of welfare economics.

[Shelly]

Do you believe climate change has gotten worse or not since 1920? Do you think we have pumped more or less CO2 into the atmosphere since 1920? Despite all that the effects has lessened even the population has increased four fold. You can't have it both ways, either we have dealt with the effects of climate change or it was never real in the first place.

Or maybe, just maybe, we are now able to better leave areas affected by climate change and the advent of air conditioning has saved the lives of billions in tropical regions?

Anyway, we are just now really starting to see the affects of climate change. The atmosphere is huge and it takes a lot of energy to get it moving, imagine it like a freight train. Almost everything done to it takes a lot of time to show and a lot of time to slow.

Also we can get into simple things like most computer models that are reported on are the absolutely most extreme models.

The fact of the matter is that global temperatures are on the rise, we can mitigate a lot of the damage but it will get much more expensive than lowering our carbon emissions. An easy thing to look at is the west coast of the united states which runs on a drought cycle to begin with and which has relatively speaking very few reservoirs. The most effective reservoir available is simple snow pack. An inch of rain is equal to 10" of snow and when spread out over the roughly 4 mountain ranges of the west coast that's a pretty huge amount of water that can be funneled over time from rivers and lakes as the snow melts.

A simple temperature difference of 2-degrees can be the difference between a rainstorm and a snowstorm with a rainstorm not only not leaving any water behind for later but also melting water that is currently there.

Meanwhile to put in the infrastructure required to build enough reservoirs to supply the entire west coast would be multiple of trillions of dollars.

[Ramahan]

With CO2 levels continually dropping in the US, you guys will have to start burning coal just to feed the trees.

- - - Updated - - -

My God Man! Haven't you got a clue, do you? The reason CO2 is dropping in the USA and other Nations in the World is that we are planting more trees then we cut.

[PC2]

With CO2 levels continually dropping in the US, you guys will have to start burning coal just to feed the trees.

I'm pretty sure the CO2 level is around 400PPM regardless of which country you're in.

As far as trees, the US is net positive on growing trees. Environmentalist fear mongers have been laughed out of the country, life is thriving on nearly all parameters.