The Media's Misleading Fearmongering Over Climate Change
"Over the last 20 years, because of temperature rises, we have seen about 116,000 more people die from heat. But 283,000 fewer people die from cold."

United States Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry says it will take trillions of dollars to "solve" climate change. Then he says, "There is not enough money in any country in the world to actually solve this problem."
Kerry has little understanding of money or how it's created. He's a multimillionaire because he married a rich woman. Now he wants to take more of your money to pretend to affect climate change.
Bjorn Lomborg points out that there are better things society should spend money on.
Lomborg acknowledges that a warmer climate brings problems. "As temperatures get higher, sea water, like everything else, expands. So we're going to maybe see three feet of sea level rise. Then they say, 'So everybody who lives within three feet of sea level, they'll have to move!' Well, no. If you actually look at what people do, they built dikes and so they don't have to move."
People in Holland did that years ago. A third of the Netherlands is below sea level. In some areas, it's 22 feet below. Yet the country thrives. That's the way to deal with climate change: adjust to it.
"Fewer people are going to get flooded every year, despite the fact that you have much higher sea level rise. The total cost for Holland over the last half-century is about $10 billion," says Lomborg. "Not nothing, but very little for an advanced economy over 50 years."
For saying things like that, Lomborg is labeled "the devil."
"The problem here is unmitigated scaremongering," he replies. "A new survey shows that 60 percent of all people in rich countries now believe it's likely or very likely that unmitigated climate change will lead to the end of mankind. This is what you get when you have constant fearmongering in the media."
Some people now say they will not have children because they're convinced that climate change will destroy the world. Lomborg points out how counterproductive that would be: "We need your kids to make sure the future is better."
He acknowledges that climate warming will kill people.
"As temperatures go up, we're likely to see more people die from heat. That's absolutely true. You hear this all the time. But what is underreported is the fact that nine times as many people die from cold…. As temperatures go up, you're going to see fewer people die from cold. Over the last 20 years, because of temperature rises, we have seen about 116,000 more people die from heat. But 283,000 fewer people die from cold."
That's rarely reported in the news.
When the media doesn't fret over deaths from heat, they grab at other possible threats.
CNN claims, "Climate Change is Fueling Extremism."
The BBC says, "A Shifting Climate is Catalysing Infectious Disease."
U.S. News and World Report says, "Climate Change will Harm Children's Mental Health."
Lomborg replies, "It's very, very easy to make this argument that everything is caused by climate change if you don't have the full picture."
He points out that we rarely hear about positive effects of climate change, like global greening.
"That's good! We get more green stuff on the planet. My argument is not that climate change is great or overall positive. It's simply that, just like every other thing, it has pluses and minuses…. Only reporting on the minuses, and only emphasizing worst-case outcomes, is not a good way to inform people."
COPYRIGHT 2023 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
For every tree you plant, I cut down two.
For every 2 you cut down I burn down 3.
I'm partial to the fragrance of burning tires.
I love the smell of napalm in the morning…
Psame, as I done on spotted owl hot wings with a side of baby seal veal.
So the hunter is brought before the judge for shooting a spotted owl and found guilty.
But the judge leans over the bench and asks, quietly, "What does it taste like"
The hunter replies "Real close to bald eagle".
urning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
Because every tree planted hurts you? Or, because you have no argument against trees, but you want to start an online fight to fill your empty life?
It's called business.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood
Learn about it.
"Over the last 20 years, because of temperature rises, we have seen about 116,000 more people die from heat. But 283,000 fewer people die from cold.
What's not in Lomborg's calculus is the environmental movement doesn't care. And it's not because they're "mean" anti-humanists (well, many of them are) but it's because they'd rather see 1000 people die from a climate that's in a non-human forced state-- Ie "natural" than 400 people die from an "human forced" climate. Literally. That's why this argument will never get any traction.
They also don't care because the goal is control, not any sort of actual environmental outcome.
Yeah I think the "mean" anti-humanists and human-forced vs. non-human forced is splitting the forest for the trees.
Bailey's a good example. He's not mean, he just wants to grow meat in vats so he can take land away from ranchers and give it back to the buffalo in order to return the prairie to it's natural state of buffalo roaming between meat bioreactors. Mean, insane, stupid... there's more than enough climate advocates for it to be more than one of each and nothing that says it can't be all three (and more) in each one of them.
Mean, insane, stupid… there’s more than enough climate advocates for it to be more than one of each and nothing that says it can’t be all three (and more) in each one of them.
And 99% of these fuckers are urbanites telling rural dwellers how to protect the environment. Your ranch example aligns with their agenda perfectly.
I always tell ecomentalists that when they say "Global Warming will cause flooding on the coast." Farmers ask,"if I run my tractor for a couple extra hours a day can we make that happen faster?"
The message they need to send, if they actually care, is "Imagine Arabs on camels instead of Cadilacs." Farmers would sacrifice a lot to see that happen.
What's also not in Lomborg's calculus, is that he is wrong and being misleading. Note that there is no link in this article or statement of where the numbers he uses come from or how they are determined. I tried figuring it out, but I couldn't find a claim to match this exactly. I did however, find that he has been criticized for misusing studies along these lines. The authors of the papers he cites were reached for comment and said that he was using their research for incorrect conclusions. For instance:
Lomborg was responding to "The burden of heat-related mortality attributable to recent human-induced climate change" published in Nature Climate Change in 2021 from Vicedo-Cabrera, A.M., Scovronick, N., Sera, F. et al., in a New York Post editorial and referenced "Global, regional, and national burden of mortality associated with non-optimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study" published in Lancet Planetary Health two months after the first journal article from Prof Qi Zhao, Prof Yuming Guo, et al.
He made a similar claim there that cold-related deaths were decreasing due to climate change faster than heat-related deaths were increasing.
Yuming Guo, author of that paper replied:
Cold-related mortality decreased and heat-related mortality increased from 2000 to 2019, causing a net decrease in total deaths. However, it is not correct to interpret that this net decrease was caused by climate change. We just estimated the trend of mortality burden related to non-optimal temperatures, but did not do further analysis to examine whether this change is due to climate change or other factors. To calculate the burden related to non-optimal temperatures, we need the following information :
1. Temperature-mortality association (exposure-response relationship) at each location, for example relative risk of mortality at different daily temperatures.
2. Daily temperature data at each location.
3. Mortality rate and population at each location.
As we calculated annual average excess death ratio (attributable fraction of death) and excess death per 100,000 residents, the “mortality rate and population” has been adjusted in the estimation. The main contributors for the change of mortality burden due to non-optimal temperatures are (1) temperature-mortality association and (2) daily temperature data.
We should particularly pay attention to (1) temperature-mortality association, which is ignored by Lomborg. We predicted temperature-mortality association at each location using the continents, indicators for Köppen–Geiger climate classification, GDP per capita, the yearly average of daily mean temperature, and the range of daily mean temperature. The predictors not only include temperature indices but also economic and spatial factors. This means the spatiotemporal variation of temperature-mortality association was not only caused by climate change, but also by economic and spatial factors. The cold-related mortality risk might decrease, because people have the ability (caused by economic increase) to take actions (heating, wear more clothes, drive cars in winter) to prevent cold-related health issues. This will lead to decrease of mortality burden due to cold temperatures.
We cannot interpret this part of the decrease to be caused by climate change. In this case, the warming of the “2) daily temperature data” would further decrease the mortality burden related to cold temperatures. However, we still need further analyses to separate the contribution of climate change and human adaptation (mainly caused by economic development).
Lomborg’s conclusion “Climate change saves lives” is biased, as climate change does not only influence temperature-related mortality, but also has other direct and indirect impacts. For example, climate change affects flood, drought, air pollution (including bushfire smoke, sand and dust storms), food supply and others which are related to increased risks of mortality. We cannot only focus on temperature and ignore other effects. If we take into account all the factors’ impacts, climate change has serious impacts on human health.
Of course, all of that is TL;DR. It doesn't pop out of a blog post or editorial in a newspaper or a tweet the way that what Lomborg says does. Stossel and Lomborg are doing the same thing that they are criticizing the MSM of doing: not looking at the full picture. They are cherry picking and misrepresenting information to try and say, "climate change isn't that bad, we can adapt easily" instead of actually trying to understand the full spectrum of likely impacts.
The money quote is
" We predicted temperature-mortality association at each location using the continents, indicators for Köppen–Geiger climate classification...The predictors not only include temperature indices but also economic and spatial factors. This means the spatiotemporal variation of temperature-mortality association was not only caused by climate change, but also by economic and spatial factors."
Which translates into "a hell of a lot of people moved south into the sun belt , which is fine as long as the power grid drives the AC all summer, but apt to produce surplus sun belt mortality if it does not.
So, he cited their documentation accurately but not in the way they wanted him to.
Thanks. Super helpful.
No, because he did not accurately describe their research as showing that heat related deaths increasing due to climate change will be offset by a greater decrease in cold-related deaths due to climate change. The author states clearly that their research was not attributing the differences they found to climate change.
Repeating it since you missed it:
We just estimated the trend of mortality burden related to non-optimal temperatures, but did not do further analysis to examine whether this change is due to climate change or other factors.
Thinking about the data further, it is clear that temperatures alone are not the reason for cold-related deaths anyway. One point brought up, if you read the whole of that article I linked, is that a city like Houston can have higher death rates due to cold than places much farther north. We saw this exactly in Texas a couple years ago. Power plants were shutting down under conditions that places in the north see every year because it was unusual for it to get that cold. So the plants were not constructed with the same amount of protection against the cold. Similarly, people up north have homes built to provide heating reliably in ways that homes in Texas might not bother with, due to the extra expense.
Not to mention that cold related deaths could have been decreasing for reasons that have nothing to do with changes in temperature. Sometimes, scientists do research to look to see if there is correlation between variables before they do any research to probe the depths of how the variables could be causally connected. Lomborg made the jump to the causation not present in the research and without the data to back it up.
This is what I mean by a lack of skepticism on the part of climate skeptics. You are subjecting Lomborg's claims to none of the skepticism you do of people saying we need to act to reduce emissions. I can only assume that is because you like what he says, so it must be correct.
JasonT20 is the slimy pile of lefty shit who proposes murder of the unarmed, in case they might, later, do something the shitbag might not like:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”
Eat shit and die, asshole.
Again, he accurately cited their research. They just do not like what the numbers actually held and wish to argue their numbers are wrong on THIS issue they dislike but not on the ones they support.
That, in case you wondered, is not science.
First, he didn't "cite" their research in the academic sense of actually saying where the data came from so other people can easily find the original research that published the data. He used a couple numbers pulled from it in opinion articles. That is not a recipe for ensuring accuracy right there.
Second, that he used their numbers isn't enough for it to be accurate. It is accurate to say that CO2 has been 10 times higher than it is currently in Earth's history. But it is not accurate to imply that this means there is no problem for human civilization if it gets to even double what it was in 1800 (which we are half the way toward making happen).
Mainly, though, what he is concluding is wrong because he is misinterpreting what the authors meant by heat or cold-related mortality and whether the numbers they came up with can be attributed to any specific causes. You keep saying that the authors didn't "like" what he was concluding, but that is you just refusing to engage in any reasoned analysis of the data. If you dislike what the authors are saying in response to Lomborg, you can present an argument at least as detailed as the ones they made at the link I shared. If not, then that is what is not science, in case you wondered.
Remember in the 1990's the climate "experts" were worried because the earths mean temp was going to increase by 3.5 degrees by 2050 and that would cause a catastrophe. Then in the 20-teens global warming became global climate change and they said we could all be dead in 12 or 20 years. Then the panic conveniently became temperatures increasing 1.5 degrees when NASA developed satellites to go into the earth's troposphere to get accurate estimates of mean global temperature and we had a period where the earth's mean temp wasn't showing a statistically significant increase.
The earths temp is cyclical. Every 100,000 years there has been an ice age, at least since there has been a large land mass at the south pole (Antarctica). The last 10,000 to 20,000 years of that interglacial period the earth's mean temp increases before the temps drop and the ice age comes, and it comes quickly. That's part of the reason Paul Ehrlich freaked out that the ice age was coming in the 1970's. The earth's temp was slightly increasing before that and then we had a cold decade in the late '60s and early 70's and because he is a member of the progressive church of the apocalypse which took the Judeo-Christian truth that humanity is flawed and applied it to his neo-Pagan religion that hated humankind and he jumped to conclusions. Then because progressives love to change the world and believe they are the only smart ones that care, they went full-blown prophets of the apocalypse on us (think Al Gore to name one). They've never really understood climate or science but they did create industries and research opportunities that are making a lot of money chasing this disaster that's not coming so they'll never really back down.
Remember when the Ozone hole was going to kill hundreds of thousands of people due to skin cancer even though the type of sunlight that causes skin cancer (UVA) was not affected by the amount of oxygen or ozone in the atmosphere (UVB and UVC are, but no one freaking out bothered to check). Then in George Bush senior's administration they passed a bill to regulate the use of refrigerants. And the Ozone hole went away before they could get the plan going. These are the same people that are freaking out over "Global Climate Change" and they are usually wrong or at least completely unhinged in their fear of "what humankind is doing to destroy the world". Time to stop them.
JasonT20 is the scumbag pile of lefty shit who proposes murder of the unarmed, in case they might, later, do something the shitbag might not like:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”
Eat shit and die, asshole.
The scaremongering is just not helpful. It is irrational, leads to misallocation of resources, leads to anxiety and paranoia, and enables the demagogues that profit off of the fear.
Facts and reason should prevail over scaremongering and fear.
Hope you were masked up while typing that.
Were you cowering in fear behind a border wall?
Probably no more than other counties.
You and sarc remain so intentionally ignorant about costs of illegal immigration it is hilarious.
But what I meant to say...
If you didnt post her anymore and reduced your carbon foot print through electricity use government wouldn't need to limit energy production.
You know. Your usual libertarian construction for why government is forced to do something.
To anyone who might be new to the comments, when JesseAz says some other person thinks this or that, he's lying.
In this case he humorously denies the benefits of immigration while accusing proponentes of ignoring the costs. Classic case of projection.
Hey sarc. Glad to see you back. When you said this this morning it was shown you were lying again. Here is the link to the posts. I notice you didnt respond.
https://reason.com/2023/12/13/will-the-climate-deal-do-anything/?comments=true#comment-10355255
So this is multiple times you've claimed i lied when it is shown you are the one lying. I provide evidence. You lie.
Here is jeff making the very same construction I accuse him of above.
chemjeff radical individualist 3 years ago
Flag Comment Mute User
This may be difficult for your reactionary brain to understand, Sevo, but if more people voluntarily assumed a responsibility to prevent the spread of infectious disease, there would be no need for mandatory orders from the state to compel mask wearing.
Thoughts? I know you and Jeff lied about it last time. But it is a clear if then statement. He also utilizes the word need, not could or can.
I dont know why you keep embarrassing yourself like this.
Damn. He ran away again. Tomorrow it is.
Now to this...
In this case he humorously denies the benefits of immigration while accusing proponentes of ignoring the costs. Classic case of projection.
You do deny costs. It has been linked here many times what the actual costs are. You have been given evidence. You keep claiming the benefit is greater without providing evidence. I even gave you the pro immigration evidence on those who claim a net benefit and it simply ignores the costs for around 15 years showing around 16 years there is a small benefit as if the initial 15 years of benefit disappeared.
You have constantly ignored the costs.
And my response to cost is in direct response to jeff who wrote:
chemjeff radical individualist 1 hour ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Were you cowering in fear behind a border wall?
No where have I ever claimed to be afraid of illegals. I always posit costs and negative externalities. Yet you rush in to defend Jeff's obvious lie. Why?
Let me drop this off topic item here. I agree that if your job can be taken by an illiterate peasant who doesn't speak the local language you failed to plan your life well.
The problem is we have ghettos full of natural born Americans who are illiterate and barely speak the language. So, they did plan their lives poorly. Do we say screw the inner cities or do we reduce competition for the kinds of jobs those local illiterate peasants can do?
So you support welfare for both illegals and citizens. Or what is your actual argument? Costs are costs. Whether employment shifts or payments from the government. In Chicago 2% of eligible illegals claiming asylum applied for work permits when eligible. Blue states are spending tens of billions on illegals who are not working. Housing has increased as cities kick out citizens on welfare to house illegals, then shifting more costs to house those on welfare. It is an exacerbating problem.
Jobs dont magically appear. There are over 120k illegals in NYC. Hochul was able to find 12k jobs in the entire state. Yet magically another 110k jobs are supposed to appear?
Meanwhile taxpayers are shouldering the costs. Hospitals on the border have been going through decades of bankruptcy from uncompensated care. Prison costs increase. ESL students cost 3x the cost as English speaking students causing more strain on schools.
Yet you resort to tropes ignorant of reality. You, jeff, and sarc will get along well.
It is diet jeff.
No, it's Operation Call of Duty, Mr Gobblygook who claims to have served with the 3rd Infantry
Reading between the gray boxes, the Diamond Princess and the Costa Luminosa were what they were because the destination governments refused debarkation and even docking.
In the ensuing months lots of crew members committed or were suspected of committing suicide because, while host countries like the US would clear ships for docking or even crew debarkation, the respective countries of origin wouldn't necessarily repatriate them nor would the cruise line or other charter flights.
The idea that people who opposed open borders in the US before and after COVID went nuts opposing open borders during COVID is just stupid, craven, evil insanity.
in the end, it will turn out that the climate fearmongering is the biggest scam since the Social Security act of 1933.
Oh I think there are plenty of candidates for "the biggest scam since..."
Such as?
Stop mocking him. Repeated references to gish gallop finally have him posting less than a thesis to say nothing. He should be applauded for succinctly saying nothing.
https://effectiviology.com/gish-gallop/
I actually watched a couple of Gish debates once to see the famous "Gish Gallop" and was a little disappointed.
It wasn't so much that he overwhelmed his opponents with mountains of error that they didn't have time to refute, but that his opponents expected to be arguing with a televangelist instead of an biologist with aberrant beliefs and were smugly unprepared.
Sure there was a little of what could be called the gallop, but for the most part it was poor preparation and a lack of debating skills on the other side.
They should have Sevo on call as a pinch debater.
The bear pandemic of 2020.
You mean the pandemic of trunk bears?
You see, I don't have a problem with trunk bears, because I wear an anti-bear mask all the time. I have never seen a bear come out of my trunk, so I know for certain my Bearmask is working.
This is definitely not a scam. I'm a good citizen, anyone who doesn't wear their Bearmask is evil and just wants to kill grandma. If we all wore Bearmasks, all the time, we could eradicate trunk bears in 2 weeks.
Do you mean "the Social Security act of 1935?
That's part of the scam.
Could we debate if freezing to death or dying of heat stroke is a better way to go?
It's not a matter of which form of death is preferable it's a matter of which condition results in the larger number of deaths.
Most of these calculations actually fail to account for the fact that many of the deaths from both causes are actually due to coincident causes like reduced resistance due to old age and accompanying condition like diabetes, COPD etc. Very few young people die from heat whereas everyone is vulnerable death from exposure to the cold.
whereas everyone is vulnerable death from exposure to the cold.
You must be a Southerner.
We could - and it would even further rebut the claim that "about 116,000 more people die from heat". Healthy humans do not die from heat alone until the sustained temperatures exceed 140 F (60 C). What we actually die from is dehydration. Lack of hydration interferes with the body's thermoregulation capabilities. So long as you stay properly hydrated, you can tolerate temperatures far, far higher than even the most pessimistic climate projection.
Why? Eskimos might like the idea of dying of heatstroke and Hawaiians may enjoy fantasizing about freezing to death but dead is dead, don't matter how you get there.
The issue is which is easier, and less costly, to deal with. Cold weather requires the creation of heat by releasing energy into the environment and the byproducts of that energy release. As an example burning coal in a furnace. We can argue about CO2 but we are pretty certain that Sulphur Dioxide mixing with water vapor is pretty bad. There are other thing in coal smoke that aren't great to breathe in.
Cooling a building is a different matter. Localized solar power running the compressor and fans of an AC System is pretty clean. Solar doesn't work at night, but with the long smer days other electrical sources are taxed less to cool.
Wow, that's a stupid comment. Where do you think the energy to cool the building comes from? Solar alone is not and never will be sufficient. But if it were, it would be even more sufficient to warm the building. What matters is whether it's more efficient to heat or to cool a building. Heating is a very simple energy transfer with remarkably high efficiency. Entropy works in your favor. Cooling, on the other hand, requires energy just to move energy (in this case, heat) from the inside of the building to ... someplace else. So the exterior of the building is not only hotter by the amount of heat moved out also by the energy needed to force the move.
On the other hand, see above. Humans don't actually need to cool their buildings so long as we give them adequate access to water. Cold kills directly.
I'mma vote heat.
Mostly because the girls wear a lot less clothing when it's hot out, so the view the day I fucked up and sat in the sun without water and shade would have been much better.
Note: I live in a beach town. I'm sure some places the hot-women calculus might be different.
AC is cheaper than heating.
Per degree of temperature changed, no it's not.
If you have an all-electric home, you can prove this out just by looking at your electric bill. Assume you want your home's interior at a baseline 70 F. Compare your electric bill when the average ambient temperature is 90 F (mid-summer near me) to a month when the average ambient temperature is 50 F (fall or spring). I have such an all-electric home and my electric bill in summer is at least double, maybe triple the bill in fall and spring. It is on par with the bill in winter when the average ambient temperature is about 20 F.
Hmmm... Edit function's still broken. Please amend that last sentence with the parenthetical that ambient of 20F is a 50 degree positive change compared to the AC demand that's a 20 degree negative change.
It's infinitely cheaper than heating at my house. But on the other hand you can't cool your house by burning organic matter.
If you lack the means to have heat or A/C, heatstroke is the easier one to avoid.
No. If you're cold, add more layers of clothes. I've been comfortable at -15 F.
But once you are naked, the only thing you can do to stay cool is to stay in the shade and don't move - but when it's 110 in the shade, you are still overheating.
Then they say, 'So everybody who lives within three feet of sea level, they'll have to move!' Well, no. If you actually look at what people do, they built dikes and so they don't have to move."
Not to mention that the "everybody who lives within three feet of sea level" requires a 'The Little Prince' conception of housing on Earth where lots of people live right at the water's edge between 1.5 and 2.5 vertical feet above sea level. Instead of reality where most beach front property is still 500 ft. horizontal feet or 50 vertical feet or more away from high tide, will expect between 50 and 200 ft. of encroachment and will have to worry about dikes if they intend for their house to stay where it is for the *next* hundred or so years.
You made your point, but "expect between 50 and 200 ft. of encroachment" is contrary to the facts. Sea level has been increasing at 8mm/century for the past 8,000 years. Of course, there are always variations around the world, due to wind, currents, and other factors. But, the general reality is that it will take a hundred centuries for sea level to reach 8 meters.
However, it's more likely that temperature with have "turned over the peak" of heat as it has done a half-dozen times over millenia. If my calc is correct, we should hit the "Hot Age peak" within a century, then we're on the way to the next "Ice Age" over the next 20,000 years. Lots of beach space to be exposed.
Please show your calculations
Not so sure about any of that, but one thing I do know for certain is that there are ancient cities completely covered by ocean and they've been underwater for at least a thousand years if not several thousand. A thinking person might be inclined to believe that at one point those ancient cities were, in fact, above the water line. They might also be inclined to note that sea levels will, at some point, recede to below that line again.
Pretending that anthropogenic warming can be attributed to those changes is, more than likely, the result of man kinds general narcissistic belief that we are the cause of everything when observationally that is probably a false claim.
"... there are ancient cities completely covered by ocean ...
True, but nothing to do with rising sea level. There are many islands that simply sank into the ocean because of volcanic action or simple erosion. Ancient cities on the bed of the Black Sea were deluged with Mediterranean Sea waters breaking through the straits.
The ancient to current sea level change and temperatures are easy to find on Wikipedia. The rising and heating trends all started long before humans started burning wood, much less oil.
They weren't "cities" because humans had not advanced to that stage yet, but there are plenty of Neolithic settlements on the bottom of the North Sea, up to 400 feet deep. That's due to the rising sea levels when the glaciers melted.
If you dislike marine fossils, stay away from the summit of Mount Everest
Lomborg points out how counterproductive that would be: "We need your kids to make sure the future is better."
I, for one, am okay with these people not having children. If you're dumb enough (or bad enough at risk assessment) to think that climate change will result in the end of mankind, please do not reproduce.
Yes. Agreed. Those are the kind of people I want abortion to be safe, legal and available to them up until say the 12th trimester. PLEASE if you think the end is near DO NOT have children! If you have children already you should drown them. Mostly to save them from having idiots for parents....
Or maybe, just maybe, they should be responsible people instead and own up to their mistakes if they risk sex? Is that too troublesome for you?
John Stossel's argument would be strengthened, if he were aware that over the last 50 years in much of the USA SUMMERS HAVE COOLED.
.
It's the extra clouds (see: Clausius-Clapeyron equation), of course, which is why summer cooling is so obvious in the (wetter) eastern parts of the USA.
.
Those increased clouds make winters WARMER than you'd expect.
That is factually wrong: "It’s not your imagination, US summers are hotter than ever before
=
An alarming trend shows average temperatures have increased by at least 2F since 1970, with even higher spikes in the west and south-west
Climate Central, a non-profit that analyzes and reports on climate science, shows 235 out of 246 US locations have seen an increase in their summer average temperature since 1970. More than half of the locations have warmed by 2F (1C) or more. And 37 locations had 30 or more summer days that were hotter than normal."
That report has been largely debunked. Look for the study assessing the quality of the temperature measurement stations and the urbanization of their sites over time. Temperature measurements at airports set up in the days of propeller planes and grass airstrips are being compared to measurements at the same site but now subject to jet backwash and concrete runways, buildings and roads nearer than to the measurement stations, etc.
Of the subset of temperature stations rated as the highest quality (by NOAA's own standards) and where that quality has not changed over time, temperatures are stable or slightly down.
That's true, but so what? The same confiscated cash that paid for "Freeze and Surrender" and "Just Say No" dinning in the 1980s buys today's revealed Faith in the settled science that electricity, not the Sun, warms the planet and speculation killed the dinosaurs.
Not really. Far more attention and money has been given to prevent the supposed climate change catastrophes than whatever the hell you're trying to describe. You just don't get it.
You are factually incorrect. Summer nights are marginally warmer while highs are not as high. Easily explained by encroachment if urban buildings around temp stations.
I see your expert and raise you a study and a celebrity.
Make it Muller's Berkeley study, and watch him run.
https://bigthink.com/articles/the-curious-case-of-richard-muller-former-climate-change-skeptic/
Youre a Mann acolyte aren't you.
Is that a thing ?
Yeah, stupid shits like you make up the group.
Stuff your fake website up your ass and then do the wprld a favor: Fuck off and die.
Shut up and read -
here's the Climate Wars' colophon:
"COAL IS NOW AN ESSENTIAL COMPONENT OF OUR ZERO CARBON FUTURE" The Right Hon. Malcolm Turnbull Prime Minister of Australia ...
The Climate Wars curates climate change news, both good and bad, and scientific & cultural atrocities perpetrated by climate deniers and activists , social entrepreneurs, propagandists , UN functionaries K Street lobbyists and cranks of all persuasions
Canadians like cloudy winter nights.
Cherry picking data to make a point means you know you cannot make it with the whole story: "New Health Data Shows Unabated Climate Change Will Cause 3.4 Million Deaths Per Year by Century End.Nov 22, 2023"
Extreme weather, hurricanes, floods, etc have caused millions of deaths due to global warming....Over two million deaths and $4.3 trillion in economic losses; that’s the impact of a half-century of extreme weather events turbo-charged by man-made global warming, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said on Monday.
According to WMO, weather, climate and water-related hazards caused close to 12,000 disasters between 1970 and 2021. Developing countries were hit hardest, seeing nine in 10 deaths and 60 per cent of economic losses from climate shocks and extreme weather.
Asia saw the highest death toll due to extreme weather, climate and water-related events over the past 50 years, with close to one million deaths – more than half in Bangladesh alone.
In Africa, WMO said that droughts accounted for 95 per cent of the reported 733,585 climate disaster deaths. "
...
v-20.org
Fear monger
Talk about cherry-picking data.
Do you know what I call people who use century long predictions with models that have always over estimated calamity? Idiot.
The nice people who study extreem weather events wish people like you would shut up. You're making excuses for governments to force insurance companies to insure property on risky places, like beaches and low tidal zones.
So far, the government's predictions have been incorrect. They should scale back with that insurance, no?
"Abdulla Ahmed Al Mandous is the current President of WMO. Al Mandous studied meteorology at the Saint Louis University in the United States and earned a Bachelor of Science degree in 1989. Later, he pursued post-graduate studies in meteorology at the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa and earned a Master of Science degree in 2005. He was awarded a PhD in Meteorology by The University of Belgrade, Serbia in 2012. Prior to his current roles, Al Mandous held several leadership positions for nearly two decades at several top governmental bodies ..." So, a career official punching his administrative ticket. Brilliant!
So you're Exhibit A supporting Stossel's point?
Breaking News! This morning at COP 354 the UN Secretary-general announced that Climate Change is really happening this time and we much phase-out oil before the year 2300 to keep the temperature increase down to 1.5c. In other news... President Trump shoe-in for 66th term in office running on "No new windmills" ticket.
AWESOME.... I had to read-up on that one. So funny to see CNN write a whole article to say Trumps statements were wrong while they literally verified the whole thing. Followed with ... but, but, but the subsidies will expire. What thinking person could possibly be influenced by such garbage.
"The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which became law on Aug. 16, 2022, extends and *increases* investment and production tax credits through 2024 for wind energy projects"
Climate change mitigation and war. Just two government boondoggles (one louder than the other).
The earth "climate changed" itself out of the ice-age and morons of the highest order are building anxiety over 1/67th C and 1mm/yr sea level rise. Which ironically didn't even happen by older data until the "climate hoax" was invented.
If there was ever an example of sheeple being led off the cliff it just doesn't get much better than the climate hoax.
...and since the US Government couldn't be bothered to follow the Supreme Law (very definition) of the USA it's now legislating [WE] mobs of citizens superstitions. One of the most dangerous tracks a government can go down.
So you deny that the polar ice caps had melted by 2014, the last rainforest was destroyed in 1999, and the world will end in less than 2 weeks according to St Greta?
Heretic.
It might be nice if climate change only killed those who believe in it.
I think you just found the perfect solution to climate change. Export them all to their chosen socialist-utopian nation instead of allowing them to just keep trying to conquer the USA.
Don't want to abide by the Supreme Law of the USA - here's your boarding pass.
Warmunist Sharknado stories are as factual as Lazarus' resurrection, race suicide apocalypse, Demon Rum apocalypse, reefer madness apocalypse, LSD chromium mutation apocalypse and Just Say No apocalyptic Cassandraism. There is zero untampered data that temperatures are rising. Now that there are no newspapers to speak of, documendacities can't be easily exposed using published daily temperatures.
May I quote you ?
He's right, of course, about alarmism and the failure to report the other side of global warming. But there's also another side to the other half of the alleged problem: namely what to do about global warming. If your response to the climate alarmism is that we're all going to die if we don't make mandatory draconian cuts in fossil fuel burning for energy, you are completely ignoring the economic disaster that the solution would cause! Just as global warming has saved far more lives than it has caused, economic disaster from dramatically cutting industrial age CO2 emissions would cost far more lives than simply adjusting to the warming would. Plus there is absolutely no evidence that it would actually reduce or even stop atmospheric CO2 levels or slow global warming. Climate is a multifactorial nonlinear chaotic system with no direct relationship between fossil fuel burning and atmospheric CO2 levels. It's not surprising that the 60% who are panicking currently due to alarmism don't understand the difference between chaotic systems and linear systems, but it's also not surprising that opportunistic politicians are ready, willing and able to use that ignorance push the hot buttons to cynically satisfy their lust for power.
Climate is a multifactorial nonlinear chaotic system with no direct relationship between fossil fuel burning and atmospheric CO2 levels.
Data shows CO2 levels to have been very stable at around 280 parts per million of dry air for thousands of years before humans started digging up and burning fossil fuels for industrialization. They started to go up ~1800, and when direct measurements started to be systematically collected, we have seen steady increases. See https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/
Is it your contention that this is a coincidence? That digging up the carbon that was sequestered geologically millions of years ago underground and burning it isn't a likely culprit? I'm not going to take up the time to find the research now, but I'm sure your Google skills are up to the challenge of finding the research that convinces basically everyone that studies the atmosphere that CO2 levels today have increased from what they were prior to 1800 due to human activities.
Actually, the website I linked has a lot of that information about how they know what they know, so you could start there easily enough if you're interested.
JasonT20 is the asshole pile of lefty shit who proposes murder of the unarmed, in case they might, later, do something the shitbag might not like:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”
Eat shit and die, asshole.
500 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was estimated to be around ~4000PPM, so I'd be curious to hear why todays historic lows of atmospheric CO2 are the 'correct' value when we're actually still moving out of a mini ice age. Our current low values of atmospheric CO2 correspond with other ice ages rather than the 'more normal' several thousand PPM over the course of the geological record.
As for your claims surrounding CO2 levels in 1800, coincidentally that was when this was first starting to be measured, ever, so of course that would be the date you'd start at. Understand, though, that such a short span of time is literally garbage data and you'll be long dead by the time there's enough direct measurement to even hope to draw a conclusion from. Extrapolating with limited data sets is a retards game, as I'm sure you'd agree.
500 million years ago, most complex life that exists now couldn't have survived on the planet. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that we need something fairly close to current atmospheric conditions. I don't think there is much basis for the claims that it must stay in such a narrow band or the world is going to end. But natural processes have definitely caused changes many times in the past that would make things very difficult for humans. The very distant past isn't very useful for comparison. But keeping to the past million years or so, we can still see that natural variations are way bigger than anything anyone is trying to blame on humans. And if climate is going to kill us, it will most likely be because of an ice age.
But keeping to the past million years or so, we can still see that natural variations are way bigger than anything anyone is trying to blame on humans.
Sure, the ice ages are larger changes than anything we've seen so far. But they also occurred over longer time periods. Natural variations since human civilization began several thousand years ago are most definitely not way bigger than anything anyone is trying to blame on humans, nor as rapid.
- Yet unexplainable by propagandists is that massive temperature drop during WWII when more unfiltered gas guzzling war equipment was running non-stop all around the globe
- Or the fact that every BS graph pretends/shows the 1980's as the beginning of the horror while Coal mining started back in 1900s or earlier.
- Or the fact that; if you think catalytic converters did anything to change temperatures you'd have to assume they are the very root reason for the temperature increases. It would make more sense to assume the 'green energy' crowd has MADE the temperature rise than to assume all the efforts had made a difference the other way around.
But frankly the real joke of it all is the microscopic premise... If I cut 1/1000th of a mm off the 2x4 of a house-stud will it cause it to collapse? Ya; not kidding. 1C/100+ and 1mm/year ocean level is complete OCD run amok. I don't care how advanced we've come measuring the entire ocean at 1mm? 100+ years at 1C? It'd take a bloody miracle and an OCD crew to even take such an accurate reading accurately.
So much to address here.
A "massive drop" in temperatures during WWII? Over the whole globe or just in Europe? Climate is a regional phenomena, but the global averages of multiple variables are determined to get a 'big picture' of trends. The global average temperature tells us what the overall energy balance of the Earth's surface and atmosphere is. If it is going up, then more energy is coming in than is going out. If it is going down, more energy is going out than is coming in. Just like for anything else that is getting warmer or cooler. Global temperatures are averaged over the whole planet either monthly or yearly. But variations mean that temperatures can be significantly higher or lower from year to year for a lot of reasons. That is why you look at trends over the longer term. Temperature trends are reported on a per decade basis because you need more than 10 years of temperatures to get any understanding of what is happening over the long term.
– Or the fact that every BS graph pretends/shows the 1980’s as the beginning of the horror while Coal mining started back in 1900s or earlier.
I don't know what "BS" graphs you're looking at. I've never seen what you're talking about.
– Or the fact that; if you think catalytic converters did anything to change temperatures you’d have to assume they are the very root reason for the temperature increases.
I'm wondering if you know what a catalytic converter does. Or did you say that as some kind of sarcasm?
Mostly, you're just ranting incoherently, as usual.
JasonT20 is the pile of lefty shit who proposes murder of the unarmed, in case they might, later, do something the shitbag might not like:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”
Eat shit and die, asshole.
Plus ca change- the lack of physical evidence has left climate skeptics pounding their own vanity press law books for a third of a century- it's become a sort of policy quarterly spectator sport.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42894680
What keeps the climate wars running is not the climate science , which despite the UN and ideological politicking, remains heuristic, and continues to incrementally progress, but the evangelical zeal of the skeptics and the PR hacks who provide fodder for their amen chorus-
Over 2,500 wannabe Lomborgs, Stossels and Marc Moranos turned up in Dubai to face off with tens of thousands of foundation and Quango climagogues , a gathering greater than any the Energy Crisis could muster before it turned into the Oil Glut.
Stossel and Lomborg both love to criticize the so-called main stream media for being "alarmist," but neither have a track record of evaluating scientific research objectively when a preferred political narrative is the goal.
Regarding his claim that heat-related deaths are more than offset by a reduction in cold-related deaths, the authors of papers Lomborg cites disagree sharply with his conclusions.
But being scientifically accurate and informative doesn't seem to be the point for the man with expertise in political science rather than natural science. If climate skeptics were actually skeptical, they would be a useful check on cases journalism that itself fails in proper scientific skepticism. That is, the "alarmist" articles that they talk about. Instead, people like Stossel and Lomborg are just the other side of the coin of what they claim to be against. They are very good at feeding people what they want to hear if they don't want to go along with policies that might affect their short-term financial interests or that go against their political ideological preferences.
This is the scumbag pile of lefty shit who proposes murder of the unarmed, in case they might, later, do something the shitbag might not like:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”
Eat shit and die, asshole.
I wonder if you’ve ever watched the video. The pathetic thing was that several people, including Babbitt were there trying to break in. You can hear one of them shouting to officers on their side of the doorway about how many people were behind them trying to get in and that they didn’t want to hurt those officers. Then they starting telling people behind them to “make a path” for those few officers to get out of the way, which they did. Then someone with a flag starts using the pole to start bashing the windows. (Probably again, as the windows were already cracked.) One person starts shouting about the officer on the other side having his gun out, but apparently others didn’t hear this, didn’t think he’d shoot, or didn’t care. That officer with the gun looks to have been by himself near the door, with perhaps 3-4 others further down the hall hovering near other doorways. There was a makeshift barricade of chairs and other furniture on his side. Ashlee Babbitt wasn’t on camera when the shot was fired, but from the angle that the officer had with his weapon when he fired, she was likely going through a broken door over the barricade.
So that is what you have. A crowd of people telling officers that they didn’t want to hurt them, so they should just get out of the way and let them bash their way through a door to the Speaker’s lobby (which leads to the House floor – there may still have been congressmen and staff in there at the time).
I still don’t know what Sevo thinks officers should have done differently. Let all those people through? They clearly didn’t have the numbers or riot equipment to wrestle with them in an attempt to detain them with less force.
My suggestion to Sevo then is this. If he is behind the door to his home when a crowd of people is banging on it with clear intention to bash it down to get in, he should just let them go by into the rest of his house with his family. After all, shooting the first person to come through the door would clearly be murder, according to him.
I’m going to save this so that I can post it every time Sevo copies this thing he posts every time he sees me post about anything at all. That way, we can both have our stock answers to each other that have nothing to do with the content of the article we are commenting on.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah....... Then the non-Psycho nut-job opens the F'En door and says, "What climate emergency??".
Brilliant JasonT20, and very much against the theme of commenters here. This site seems to be a magnet for that certain type of person that is impressed with their rationality and intellect while not understanding critical thinking, as you note, really just working backwards from a conclusion.
Hahahahahahahaha
And how exactly do you know how the people who comment here reached the conclusions that they have?
Just as Yogi Berra did.
Stuff your fake website up your ass.
Do you mean the website whose colophon reads:
The Climate Wars curates climate change news, both good and bad, and scientific & cultural atrocities perpetrated by climate deniers and activists , social entrepreneurs, propagandists , UN functionaries K Street lobbyists and cranks of all persuasions
Berra famously said:
"You can see a lot just by observing"
As with most things, it’s always projection with the Carina types.
"critical thinking, as you note, really just working backwards from a conclusion"
Oh... Like the 'critical thinking' it takes to believe poking gov-'guns' at those 'icky' people constantly and compulsively is the "conclusion" for bloody everything even things that aren't even an issue??????
Yours and JasonT20s problem is you thing 'guns' can work like magical wands of christmas gifts when in reality they unjustly enslave, steal and kill. It's the very stupidity of every leftard and the stupidity that brought about Nazi genocide. The ignorance it takes to think government is anything but a monopoly of 'guns' is astounding in the left.
If the issue is important to the left in America, then I am just naturally going to assume they are lying about it.
If the issue is important to The Left in America, then I’m going to assume they are lying about it. That’s a real shame because I used to be a hard-core Lefty.
The mainstream media lies around the Trayvon Martin case woke me up to the mainstream media biases and led me to question their claims surrounding other topics, such as climate change, gun violence, LEO violence, rhetoric around the Occupy Movement (my era), and countless other topics.
2016 was a case study.
When COVID happened, I was ready for the lies. I - like many - wasn’t disappointed as the lies spewed forth.
There are always some shit-for-brains that will try to impress us with their knowledge of highschool chemistry in order to prove a point. But there are no points to make other than;
(A) Climate Change is a religion for a lot of really stupid people.
(B) People will adapt and continue on.