The IPCC reports are dry and scientific. GIGObuster’s link, while slightly comical in tone, is quite glib and and speeds over a lot of science. If Mr. Ditka is sincere in wanting to learn, I think someone should link to a slower, more basic tutorial.
Big Questions | NASA Climate Kids might be what we’re looking for. 
As a teachable moment, it should be noted that the link HD used was Tucker Carson interviewing Lomborg. In light of the many lies and misleading information coming from Lomborg, that was evidence that once again shows how poisonous FOX news is.
That kid’s site is 1000 times better than the trash FOX is making to mislead many conservatives on this issue.
I read your link, but it was not responsive to my question. Perhaps I wasn’t clear before. I was asking if he was mistaken about these two specific claims:
-
“Every year in the 1920s, we estimate about half a million people died around the world” [from weather]
-
“We are now down to about 20,000 people that die every year” [from weather]
Are those assertions accurate or not? You wrote “Lomborg is always wrong” so presumably you think he’s wrong here too. So how many people died from weather 100 years ago, and how many people die from weather now?
If the truth is that he’s actually correct about these two claims, but that you think it’s misleading because weather-related deaths are only a small slice of the coming climate change apocalypse, I’d still be interested in hearing your thoughts about the larger slices of the pie, but perhaps you could cut the stupid crap like “Lomborg is always wrong”
HD, do you think my ex gf with the PhD in atmospheric science who works for NOAA and publishes in peer reviewed scientific journals is wrong when she claims that one of CO2’s properties is to absorb infrared radiation (ie heat) that is naturally on a trajectory into space, and then promptly re-emit this radiation in a random direction, causing a significant % of CO2-striking radiation to be redirected back towards Earth in what amounts to the classic “greenhouse effect”?
Do you think she and every other reputable scientist are wrong when they claim that increased CO2 emissions leads directly to an increase in this phenomenon?
Do you think measurements are wrong that claim CO2 levels have been increasing since the industrial revolution? Here is a cite going back to 1960. Do you think it is incorrect? https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html
Do you understand that returning to atmospheric carbon levels of the carboniferous period (800 ppm)would create climate conditions similar to that time? Have you seen a map of what sea levels were like back then? carboniferous period world map - Google Search
Do you think 7 billion people could make a harmonious transition to living in a world with such reduced landmass? What % of the world’s population do you believe lives within 10 miles of a coastline?
Also, re: our previous interaction, could you explain why you think providing food, medicine, and disaster mitigation is just a case of the government fraudulently slapping a “general welfare” label on their actions as a pretext to assume “unlimited power”?
Can you say a few words about how having more babies addresses any of this?
Uh, he is still wrong, because his intention is clear, to discredit what others do realize is very likely to come when refugees increase and other heat related issues. One can be also accurate when saying that there are less cases of polio nowadays, but it will be grossly inaccurate and wrong to tell others that therefore we should not worry about the disease and that then we do not need vaccines now.
What Lomborg and his “style” of accuracy misses:
Mind you, they also do not deal much on the pressures due to climate change refugees. But I point to the Wilson Center to show how even dismissing warfare that deaths are minimized by the likes of Lomborg by pointing at reports that do ignore the effects of pollution and related heat deaths.
One more thing:
Actually that observation was the crappy one, reading that link would demonstrate how the peers of Lomborg see him and that Lomborg is wrong or misleads others as a way of life. (BTW Lomborg is not a climate scientist or an environmentalist, his degree was in Political Science.)
Elsewhere, other scientists are not impressed with him either.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-response-to-lomborgs-re/
And that has been known for more than 15 years, Lomborg is not better and it is clear to me that** FOX news knows that already. **
Oops mispress
“Back in the 1920s, more people died from diseases. Therefore, we shouldn’t have to worry about antibiotic resistance.”
Part of propaganda is framing. And what Lomberg is doing is asking a very stupid, irrelevant question, answering it, and pretnding that that resolves anything. But it doesn’t. Due to massive technological advances we’ve seen a reduction in weather-related fatalities… Compared to 1920. What the fuck is that supposed to say about anything? How does that solve the problem that broad swathes of the tropics may end up virtually uninhabitable in a century? How does that solve rising sea levels, shrinking water sources, increased reach of disease-bearing insects, and more? It’s such a stupidly irrelevant question that you have to ask, “why even bring it up?”
… Well would it surprise you to hear he’s being bankrolled by the Kochs?
It shouldn’t.
Hey HD, do you understand the concept of hyperbole, or are you intentionally dismissing it for a nonsensical gotcha?
Oh, ok, the latter. Good to know! :rolleyes:
Exactly. If it’s true that there are fewer weather-related fatalities today than there were 100 years ago (which seems possible to me), it’s because we now have weather satellites, weather radar, and (as a result) much better weather forecasting, which, in the vast majority of cases, gives people in the path of severe weather more time to prepare. Modern building techniques (at least in wealthier countries) make it less likely that people will be injured or killed by collapsing buildings in severe storms.
And, of course, all of that is completely independent of how frequently severe weather occurs.
I’m suspicious of that 20,000/year figure.
The 1970 Bhola cyclone in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) killed over 500,000. More recently, Cyclone Nina 1975 (China ) killed 229,000; another Bangladeshi cyclone killed 139,000 in 1991; and Cyclone Nargis killed 138,000 in Myanmar in 2008.
What about heat? According to this webpage there were 70,000+ heat-related deaths in Europe 2003; 56,000 deaths in Russia 2010. There have been many other heat waves in recent years. In July 2018 the temperature was 41.1°C in Tokyo — I don’t think any 40° temperature had ever been recorded in Japan previously — and hundreds died. A few weeks ago, temperature exceeded 44°C where I live — with fans just blowing hot air my own fragile health would have been in jeopardy without a/c.
250,000 people died during the 2010-12 drought in Somalia. (Note that these deaths alone, if attributed to “weather,” would put the decade’s average at 25,000.) Rainstorms caused mudslides in Vargas, Venezuela in 1999 killing between 10,000 and 30,000. High rainfall causes other deaths due to flooding, almost 1000 lives during the 2011 disaster where I live.
TL;DR: I don’t think the 20,000/yr estimate is entirely reasonable.
Yeah. Do you think resorting to “hyperbole” is helpful / useful when discussing climate change?
If global warming truly spirals out of control as it appears that it will inevitably do, the results will be much worse than what you consider “hyperbole” now. The sad part is that the science is relatively simple and straightforward, and we already have a lot of statistical evidence that shows what is happening on this planet. I guess that doesn’t matter, though.
In another thread, another poster wrote “the odds approach certainty that we as a species will be too late to slow down global warming. In which case, billions will likely die.”
Do you think that’s accurate? That “billions will likely die” from global warming? Do you consider that a sober, non-hyperbolic assessment of the likely outcome?
Why do you even care? You don’t believe it’s happening. (Or are on some other step of the denialism ladder which leads you to say we should do nothing, you’ll have to excuse me if I’m out of patience to distinguish.)
That sounds to my ears like a tacit admission that it’s more hyperbole.
I care because ISTM that there’s a shitload of “hyperbole” and alarmism on the topic of climate change. People who tell themselves (and everyone else) that they’re just following the science and living in reality have no problem spouting off about how “billions will die” or humanity will go extinct. Their ignorance should be fought.
Out of idle curiosity, what would convince you that the scientific consensus on this matter is, in fact, correct and that these experts who’ve studied and modeled for decades and have been warning us for just about that long know what they’re talking about, possibly even with a nearer degree of accuracy than your gut feelings ?
In terms of its overall impact? It might not be as far off as you complacently imagine, based on scientific assessments such as these:
Now of course, if anybody is claiming that “billions will likely die” due to global warming in the next decade or thereabouts, that seems extremely excessive.
But if you’re just talking about total aggregate impact, well, do the math.
If climate change starts directly killing (via factors such as malnutrition, heat stress, diarrhea, and malaria) a quarter-million people every year, that alone is 100 million deaths if it continues over the next 400 years. And that doesn’t take into account any of the indirect impacts from reduced food production, increased extreme poverty, population displacement, or disruptions in health services, nor the effects of climate change in worsening natural disasters, all of which could bump up the total by an order of magnitude. I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to suggest that we might lose a billion or more humans to the combined effects of climate change before we manage to regain a more stable climate system. (If we ever do.)
Just because something STY like “hyperbole” doesn’t mean that it necessarily is. I agree that at present it seems quite unlikely that the human species will actually go extinct, but then, I’m not seeing any serious scientists or policymakers predicting that.
If you (generic you) want to avoid implausible hyperbole and alarmism, it’s easy to do by sticking to serious sources of climate science reporting. But you need to guard against the tendency to dismiss some prediction as “hyperbole” or “alarmism” just because your own naive and ignorant assumptions about the short term make it sound unrealistic.
Let’s try this advice out. Here is the snippet of your post that attempts to defend the “billions will likely die” quote from before:
You say that those things “could bump up the total by an order of magnitude”. Did you read that in one of your “serious sources of climate science reporting”? If so, which one? What was the probability that it actually would “bump up the total by an order of magnitude” (a whole lot of things are possible or “could” happen, but I’m more interested in what’s “likely” or probable). Or is this just a gut feeling for you?
Better than belittle, disparage, minimize, or poor-mouthing the science.
Again, it is clear that that is what Lomborg is doing. And again: you fell for it.