25 Climate Change Deaths In California

[PoliTalker]

California is up to 25 deaths from the Human-Caused Climate Change Wildfires.

"A new analysis published this week by the National Bureau of Economic Research suggests that, if left unchecked, climate change could drive temperatures up to the point where they would lead to 85 deaths per 100,000 people globally per year by the end of the century. That’s more than are currently killed by all infectious diseases across the globe."

Time: Climate Change Could Cause More Annual Deaths Than Infectious Disease by 2100

 

[gfm7175]

California is up to 25 deaths from the Human-Caused Climate Change Wildfires.

"Climate Change", an undefined buzzword, cannot cause fires, moron...

At least some of those fires have been directly linked to arson... Arson is not "climate change", moron.

Some fires start naturally (lightning strikes, dew)
Some fires start accidentally (campfire getting out of control)
Some fires start purposefully (arson)

None of those things are "climate change".

"A new analysis published this week by the National Bureau of Economic Research suggests that, if left unchecked, climate change could drive temperatures up to the point where they would lead to 85 deaths per 100,000 people globally per year by the end of the century. That’s more than are currently killed by all infectious diseases across the globe."

Time: Climate Change Could Cause More Annual Deaths Than Infectious Disease by 2100

An undefined buzzword cannot cause deaths, moron...

How fucking stupid do people have to be to actually believe this sort of garbage...??


EDIT: How can "climate change" cause more deaths than infectious disease by 2100 IF WE ONLY HAVE TWELVE (or less) YEARS OF EXISTENCE LEFT?? "Climate Change" is going to end the world in twelve years if we don't immediately take action, REMEMBER??

 

[Damocles]

If left unchecked it "could" happen this way... Or it "could" make more food and save thousands... using the "could" method of "science" where speculation is treated as something that has happened in the misleading title of this thread I can generate pretty much anything!

If left unchecked it "could" draw aliens from Alpha Centuari to fix all our woes...

If left unchecked it "could" reteach us all Latin and the one world language would align the planets and Bill and Ted would write their song that unites all Humanity in Peace and Love due to Wyld Stallyons Music!

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Damocles,

If left unchecked it "could" happen this way... Or it "could" make more food and save thousands... using the "could" method of "science" where speculation is treated as something that has happened in the misleading title of this thread I can generate pretty much anything!

If left unchecked it "could" draw aliens from Alpha Centuari to fix all our woes...

If left unchecked it "could" reteach us all Latin and the one world language would align the planets and Bill and Ted would write their song that unites all Humanity in Peace and Love due to Wyld Stallyons Music!

That was good.

But none of those is contained in working scientific paper extrapolations based on data of current observable trends.

Guilty as charged on the misleading title. It is my own contention that the 25 deaths in the California Wildfires are actually Climate Change Deaths. That is not supported in the link.

 

[gfm7175]

... deleted Mantras 36d, 22h, 22b

No valid argumentation presented.

 

[archives]

"Climate Change", an undefined buzzword, cannot cause fires, moron...

At least some of those fires have been directly linked to arson... Arson is not "climate change", moron.

Some fires start naturally (lightning strikes, dew)
Some fires start accidentally (campfire getting out of control)
Some fires start purposefully (arson)

None of those things are "climate change".


An undefined buzzword cannot cause deaths, moron...

How fucking stupid do people have to be to actually believe this sort of garbage...??

I don’t believe the argument is that it caused the fires, rather, led to the easy spread of the fires

 

[PoliTalker]

Warming and drought create conditions where wildfires can rage.

The wildfires in recent years have burned more acreage and spread faster than normal.

Some of the fires have even created their own weather.

Here's a video of a 'firenado.'

 

[Phantasmal]

Warming and drought create conditions where wildfires can rage.

The wildfires in recent years have burned more acreage and spread faster than normal.

Some of the fires have even created their own weather. Reported Post by guno

Here's a video of a 'firenado.'

It’s so destructive, but also beautiful.

 

[gfm7175]

I don’t believe the argument is that it caused the fires, rather, led to the easy spread of the fires

... and that argument would be wrong as well... What has led to the easy spread of the fires is the SOTC's unwillingness to manage their forests (leaving dry brush as fuel for out of control fires) and their unwillingness to have adequate firebreaks. It's almost as if Dems in the SOTC want it to burn down...

 

[T. A. Gardner]

California is up to 25 deaths from the Human-Caused Climate Change Wildfires.

"A new analysis published this week by the National Bureau of Economic Research suggests that, if left unchecked, climate change could drive temperatures up to the point where they would lead to 85 deaths per 100,000 people globally per year by the end of the century. That’s more than are currently killed by all infectious diseases across the globe."

Time: Climate Change Could Cause More Annual Deaths Than Infectious Disease by 2100

That has got to be the most idiotic thing I've read in at least months. Gorebal Warming didn't kill them. The fire, most likely set by arsonists or human activity killed them.

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...y-about-climate-change-is-wrong/#6f50d42012d6
https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/top-10-climate-change-predictions-gone-spectacularly-wrong

I could go to a psychotic... err... psychic and get better predictions than the Gorebal Warming crowd have made. At least a psychic would come close to 50 - 50 on their guesses.

 

[Celticguy]

That has got to be the most idiotic thing I've read in at least months. Gorebal Warming didn't kill them. The fire, most likely set by arsonists or human activity killed them.

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...y-about-climate-change-is-wrong/#6f50d42012d6
https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/top-10-climate-change-predictions-gone-spectacularly-wrong

I could go to a psychotic... err... psychic and get better predictions than the Gorebal Warming crowd have made. At least a psychic would come close to 50 - 50 on their guesses.

Human actions like the pyrotecnic gender reveal already known to have started a huge one in northern cali.
Global warming has zero to do with it.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Human actions like the pyrotecnic gender reveal already known to have started a huge one in northern cali.
Global warming has zero to do with it.

You spelled Gorebal Warming wrong. Gorebal Warming is the insane religion of climate change led by their High Priest AlGore (one word) who is looking for Manbearpig diligently to stop it. He's serial, err, cereal, or something about it too!

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello T. A. Gardner,

That has got to be the most idiotic thing I've read in at least months. Gorebal Warming didn't kill them. The fire, most likely set by arsonists or human activity killed them.

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...y-about-climate-change-is-wrong/#6f50d42012d6
https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/top-10-climate-change-predictions-gone-spectacularly-wrong

I could go to a psychotic... err... psychic and get better predictions than the Gorebal Warming crowd have made. At least a psychic would come close to 50 - 50 on their guesses.

I choose to believe that these things are linked:

1. Humans burning fossil fuels for over a 100 years.

2. Increased CO2.

3. Heat waves, more drought and fires.

4. Reports of polar ice melting at greater rates.

5. Increased glacier melt.

6. Sea level rise.

7. Increased Carbonic Acid levels in the oceans, loss of reef systems.

8. Increased number and intensity of hurricanes.

9. Most major scientists telling us this is human-caused Climate Change.

10. Deaths in the West Coast Wildfires.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Hello T. A. Gardner,



I choose to believe that these things are linked:

1. Humans burning fossil fuels for over a 100 years.

Try for over 200 years. Coal burning for heat started as early as the 15th century and widespread use occurred by the beginning of the 19th Century.

2. Increased CO2.

A bit more of nothing is still nothing. The percentage in the Earth's atmosphere is less than 1% CO2-- well less than one-percent.

3. Heat waves, more drought and fires.

Correlation doesn't mean causation necessarily

4. Reports of polar ice melting at greater rates.

Same thing.

5. Increased glacier melt.

In some places. In others glaciers are growing.

6. Sea level rise.

Has been about 2 to 3 mm per year. That's really nothing.

7. Increased Carbonic Acid levels in the oceans, loss of reef systems.

Again, linking this to anthropomorphic causes is tenuous at best.

8. Increased number and intensity of hurricanes.

This hasn't happened. The number of these has remained relatively constant over longer periods including the present.

9. Most major scientists telling us this is human-caused Climate Change.

They also told us that if we stopped using CFC's the hole in the ozone layer at the South Pole would disappear. We did, and it's now well past their predication of closure date but the hole's still there...
Just remember...
Plate tectonics was discovered in the 1950's
The Van Allen belt was discovered in the late 50's
We didn't know what the bottom of the oceans looked like in the 1940's

What we don't know is a vast amount of stuff. What we do know isn't and much of it is of recent orgin.

10. Deaths in the West Coast Wildfires.

Not due to Gorebal Warming. Due to fires coming to where people are.

By the way, ponder this:

The Gorebal Warming crowd tells us this warming started in earnest in the 1950's or 60's and has accelerated. Aircraft produced contrails started occurring in the 1940's and have expanded to where they create a near permanent haze over most of the Northern Hemisphere year round now. Water is a much better greenhouse gas than CO2. The albedo of the planet changed with increased cloud cover. Cloud cover acts as a much better insulator trapping heat longer than CO2 does.

Fixing this would require simple and cheap changes to air travel, but it wouldn't aid a political agenda based on Gorebal Warming...

 

[Celticguy]

You spelled Gorebal Warming wrong. Gorebal Warming is the insane religion of climate change led by their High Priest AlGore (one word) who is looking for Manbearpig diligently to stop it. He's serial, err, cereal, or something about it too!

I have failed, sorry.
May Manbearpig explode on me.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

 

[PoliTalker]

Try for over 200 years. Coal burning for heat started as early as the 15th century and widespread use occurred by the beginning of the 19th Century.



A bit more of nothing is still nothing. The percentage in the Earth's atmosphere is less than 1% CO2-- well less than one-percent.



Correlation doesn't mean causation necessarily



Same thing.



In some places. In others glaciers are growing.



Has been about 2 to 3 mm per year. That's really nothing.



Again, linking this to anthropomorphic causes is tenuous at best.



This hasn't happened. The number of these has remained relatively constant over longer periods including the present.



They also told us that if we stopped using CFC's the hole in the ozone layer at the South Pole would disappear. We did, and it's now well past their predication of closure date but the hole's still there...
Just remember...
Plate tectonics was discovered in the 1950's
The Van Allen belt was discovered in the late 50's
We didn't know what the bottom of the oceans looked like in the 1940's

What we don't know is a vast amount of stuff. What we do know isn't and much of it is of recent orgin.



Not due to Gorebal Warming. Due to fires coming to where people are.

By the way, ponder this:

The Gorebal Warming crowd tells us this warming started in earnest in the 1950's or 60's and has accelerated. Aircraft produced contrails started occurring in the 1940's and have expanded to where they create a near permanent haze over most of the Northern Hemisphere year round now. Water is a much better greenhouse gas than CO2. The albedo of the planet changed with increased cloud cover. Cloud cover acts as a much better insulator trapping heat longer than CO2 does.

Fixing this would require simple and cheap changes to air travel, but it wouldn't aid a political agenda based on Gorebal Warming...

You've made the best possible points for your position, given what you have to work with. I would add that there is a great lag effect between cause and effect, which explains the more drastic recent climate changes in respect to the long period of time over which CO2 has been building.

Bottom line here is that most people are fairly well convinced, including most scientists. But, as you have shown, there are reasons to support doubt. Nothing can be proved. Most of the world is pretty sure, but there is the slim bit of doubt, which you have raised well.

Given that we are not sure and can't prove it, the best course of action is the safe route. Because of the lag effect, we can't know until years / decades after actions. For that reason we would be foolish to assume we have nothing to worry about. We have to assume the worst, because there is no planet B. That is the wise course.

If we change our energy over, then we get lots of clean new energy that doesn't pollute, and it is virtually inexhaustible. The more we do, the lower the cost gets. If we continue with old tech, we eventually run out of easy to extract fossil fuels. The price goes higher and higher. But the worst case is that we assume we don't have to deal with this, and then it turns out we were wrong. Then we are totally screwed and our planet becomes far less habitable, causing mass migrations, sea level rise which inundates major cities, and widespread death among humans with major species loss.

That was 4 years ago.

Good news: Through stark determination and opposition, environmental activists were able to end BP's plan to drill off one of the most inhospitable places on Earth, where a clean up would be impossible. BP gave it up. Problem is, now that BP gave it up, other oil exploration companies have been making inquiries to see if they might be able to succeed where BP failed. The quest to save the planet from greed never ends.

 

[archives]

... and that argument would be wrong as well... What has led to the easy spread of the fires is the SOTC's unwillingness to manage their forests (leaving dry brush as fuel for out of control fires) and their unwillingness to have adequate firebreaks. It's almost as if Dems in the SOTC want it to burn down...

Well I'd ask what SOTC is suppose to stand for, but if it is a Gov't agency, keep in mind that a large extent the property the fires are burning belong to the Federal Gov't, meaning we know who is in charge

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello archives,

... keep in mind that a large extent the property the fires are burning belong to the Federal Gov't, meaning we know who is in charge

Too funny. DT said the problem is 'forest management.' And just WHO had been responsible for that? Who is the head of managing everything? Just where does that buck stop?

He keeps acting like he is some outsider who is going to come in a fix everything, but he keeps forgetting. When people look for someone to blame for mismanagement, HE IS THE ONE.

These fires represent a failure on Trump's part.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You've made the best possible points for your position, given what you have to work with. I would add that there is a great lag effect between cause and effect, which explains the more drastic recent climate changes in respect to the long period of time over which CO2 has been building.

Bottom line here is that most people are fairly well convinced, including most scientists. But, as you have shown, there are reasons to support doubt. Nothing can be proved. Most of the world is pretty sure, but there is the slim bit of doubt, which you have raised well.

Given that we are not sure and can't prove it, the best course of action is the safe route. Because of the lag effect, we can't know until years / decades after actions. For that reason we would be foolish to assume we have nothing to worry about. We have to assume the worst, because there is no planet B. That is the wise course.

If we change our energy over, then we get lots of clean new energy that doesn't pollute, and it is virtually inexhaustible. The more we do, the lower the cost gets. If we continue with old tech, we eventually run out of easy to extract fossil fuels. The price goes higher and higher. But the worst case is that we assume we don't have to deal with this, and then it turns out we were wrong. Then we are totally screwed and our planet becomes far less habitable, causing mass migrations, sea level rise which inundates major cities, and widespread death among humans with major species loss.

That was 4 years ago.

Good news: Through stark determination and opposition, environmental activists were able to end BP's plan to drill off one of the most inhospitable places on Earth, where a clean up would be impossible. BP gave it up. Problem is, now that BP gave it up, other oil exploration companies have been making inquiries to see if they might be able to succeed where BP failed. The quest to save the planet from greed never ends.

I agree. The safe route is what works. We shift to natural gas and nuclear for electrical power and move towards using hydrogen as our portable fuel for motor vehicles. Solar and wind are proven--PROVEN--expensive and unworkable solutions for electrical power. Battery cars remain a niche industry as they always have been and will likely always be. The US has within its borders sufficient uranium and thorium to supply the country with energy for over 1000 years at our current levels of use. I suspect long before then something better, like fusion will come along...

We need solutions that work. What I propose above would work and dramatically reduce not just CO2 emissions but would reduce the cost of electricity for hundreds of millions. Solar and wind won't do that.

We could implement changes to flight paths in a matter of months to eliminate or reduce contrails at very little cost.

Instead, we get the most vocal calls on this wanting things like the totally unworkable and utterly idiotic New Green Deal.