Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Meanwhile:



https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0224204808.htm

A population? Are you confused that this represents total resistance to chlorinated hydrocarbons and all their derivatives? 400,000+ people die every year from malaria. Happy about that, are you?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You're right, it was simple ignorance on your part, again. First, the article title is misleading - it says "costs", but in the article they're "investments". Investments are often paid back, even yield profits. And one way or another, alternative energy strategies are the growth industries of the future. Billionaires are already investing to get positioned for this.

Second - The Paris accord is non-binding; what actually gets spent will depend on who's in power where, and how noisy you and your friends are.

Third - something like successful fusion or a more cost-effective fission reactor will be a game changer and last year's Paris accord numbers will be irrelevant.

So at this point spending is even harder to predict than climate change, if that will put it into perspective for you. You don't know how much will be spent, or what direct and indirect benefits will accrue from that spending.



You're truly beyond help.

Rejection of responsibility towards the poor and ill, failure of social safety nets - are why poor people die, especially in a 'civilized' western country like the UK or the US.

Blaming poverty-related deaths on AGW strategies?? You're showing a complete absence of conscience, not to mention reason. You're truly without morals. You'll say anything as a denier, won't you?

To a leftist, when money is pissed down a rat hole to achieve some political objective it is always characterized as "investments." Like Solyndra. An investment.

Regarding blaming lunatic support for AGW carbon sequestration schemes with poor people dying, the simple fact is that one of the objectives of environmental loons is to make carbon based fuel very, very expensive. When you make energy expensive, you kill poor people, especially the poorest among us. You may not want to take responsibility for those deaths, but they are nevertheless the consequence of zealots like you, believers in pseudo-science and convinced that your current imaginary apocalypse actually justifies the kind of big government world you yearn for.

Because you don't give a rip for the people harmed by your belief system, I would suggest that you stay away from moral arguments, since you are apparently unacquainted with the very concept.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Horseshit.

Just waiting for you to link science -> eugenics -> Nazi deathcamps, and then you will have truly touched bottom.

If you are truly unaware of the influence of Darwinian evolutionary theory (science) with the justification for the Eugenics movement that was a pseudo scientific fig leaf used by the Nazis to justify the extermination of people they decided were inferior, then in addition to learning something about climate science I would suggest a high school level course in history.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

If you are truly unaware of the influence of Darwinian evolutionary theory (science) with the justification for the Eugenics movement that was a pseudo scientific fig leaf used by the Nazis to justify the extermination of people they decided were inferior, then in addition to learning something about climate science I would suggest a high school level course in history.

Wrong. I was a 20th century history major.



Sent from my SM-T705W using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Wrong. I was a 20th century history major.



Sent from my SM-T705W using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

You are one confused little puppy, Jack. Since my comment was directed towards Lake Effect and you answer as if it was directed towards you, I have to wonder how firm your grasp of reality is.

But thank you for clarifying your credentials to speak to the science of climate change. Explains a lot.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

You are one confused little puppy, Jack. Since my comment was directed towards Lake Effect and you answer as if it was directed towards you, I have to wonder how firm your grasp of reality is.

But thank you for clarifying your credentials to speak to the science of climate change. Explains a lot.

For 3 decades I taught courses on global environmental issues. My first Masters program was in studies of the future - University of Houston Clear Lake. It included computer modelling and forecasting, scenario writing, historical analogy, field anomaly relaxation, Delphi (which I employed as a planning consultant ), etc.

Thanks for asking.

Sent from my SM-T705W using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

For 3 decades I taught courses on global environmental issues. My first Masters program was in studies of the future - University of Houston Clear Lake. It included computer modelling and forecasting, scenario writing, historical analogy, field anomaly relaxation, Delphi (which I employed as a planning consultant ), etc.

Thanks for asking.

Sent from my SM-T705W using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Yet, you seem to have learned so little and are unaware of when you are not being spoken to.

Like I said, probable narcissistic personality disorder on display.

[Larry Florida]

Originally Posted by Delfin

A population? Are you confused that this represents total resistance to chlorinated hydrocarbons and all their derivatives? 400,000+ people die every year from malaria. Happy about that, are you?

In a world of 6+ billion people about 10 million die every month. 400,000 is only 1 or 2 days worth.

Just saying.

[SailOar]

Human Extinction Isn't That Unlikely | The Atlantic

In its annual report on “global catastrophic risk,” the nonprofit debuted a startling statistic: Across the span of their lives, the average American is more than five times likelier to die during a human-extinction event than in a car crash.

Partly that’s because the average person will probably not die in an automobile accident. Every year, one in 9,395 people die in a crash; that translates to about a 0.01 percent chance per year. But that chance compounds over the course of a lifetime. At life-long scales, one in 120 Americans die in an accident.

The risk of human extinction due to climate change—or an accidental nuclear war—is much higher than that. The Stern Review, the U.K. government’s premier report on the economics of climate change, estimated a 0.1 percent risk of human extinction every year. That may sound low, but it also adds up when extrapolated to century-scale. The Global Challenges Foundation estimates a 9.5 percent chance of human extinction within the next hundred years.[...]

So what kind of human-level extinction events are these? The report holds catastrophic climate change and nuclear war far above the rest, and for good reason. On the latter front, it cites multiple occasions when the world stood on the brink of atomic annihilation. While most of these occurred during the Cold War, another took place during the 1990s, the most peaceful decade in recent memory:

In 1995, Russian systems mistook a Norwegian weather rocket for a potential nuclear attack. Russian President Boris Yeltsin retrieved launch codes and had the nuclear suitcase open in front of him. Thankfully, Russian leaders decided the incident was a false alarm.[...]

Other risks won’t stem from technological hubris. Any year, there’s always some chance of a super-volcano erupting or an asteroid careening into the planet. Both would of course devastate the areas around ground zero—but they would also kick up dust into the atmosphere, blocking sunlight and sending global temperatures plunging. (Most climate scientists agree that the same phenomenon would follow any major nuclear exchange.)

Yet natural pandemics may pose the most serious risks of all. In fact, in the past two millennia, the only two events that experts can certify as global catastrophes of this scale were plagues. The Black Death of the 1340s felled more than 10 percent of the world population. Eight centuries prior, another epidemic of the Yersinia pestis bacterium—the “Great Plague of Justinian” in 541 and 542—killed between 25 and 33 million people, or between 13 and 17 percent of the global population at that time.[...]

[fryewe]

Across the span of their lives, the average American is more than five times likelier to die during a human-extinction event than in a car crash.

Errr...whut?????

A lot of Americans (over 30,000 a year) die in auto accidents. Been that way for a few decades.

Not one has died from a "human extinction event."

Almost a ten per cent chance of a human extinction event in the next hundred years? Too many preppers. Ain't going to happen.

These folks can predict the 100 year future to within a tenth of a percent with simple probabilities, but can't get the "global temperature anomaly" close with complex models? Gimme a break.

...natural pandemics may pose the most serious risks of all. In fact, in the past two millennia, the only two events that experts can certify as global catastrophes of this scale were plagues. The Black Death of the 1340s felled more than 10 percent of the world population. Eight centuries prior, another epidemic of the Yersinia pestis bacterium—the “Great Plague of Justinian” in 541 and 542—killed between 25 and 33 million people, or between 13 and 17 percent of the global population at that time...

Global catastrophes and "human extinction events" aren't synonymous.

Edit: Oops. Failed to note the article was from The Atlantic. Never mind. Sensationalist fiction.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by fryewe

... Edit: Oops. Failed to note the article was from The Atlantic. Never mind. Sensationalist fiction.

Merely reported in The Atlantic (& others).

The 2016 annual report by the Global Challenges Foundation estimates the risk that an average American is more than five times likelier to die during a human-extinction event than in a car crash.

The Foundation's annual report Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 is the result of the continued partnership between the Foundation and researchers at Future of Humanity Institute and the Global Priorities Project at Oxford Martin School at Oxford University.

The Report ➥ http://www.globalchallenges.org/repo...eport-2016.pdf

Executive Summary ➥ http://www.globalchallenges.org/repo...%20Summary.pdf

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Larry Florida

In a world of 6+ billion people about 10 million die every month. 400,000 is only 1 or 2 days worth.

Just saying.

Thank you for your candor. I suspect you speak for many enthusiastic environmentalists.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Merely reported in The Atlantic (& others).

The 2016 annual report by the Global Challenges Foundation estimates the risk that an average American is more than five times likelier to die during a human-extinction event than in a car crash.

The Foundation's annual report Global Catastrophic Risks 2016 is the result of the continued partnership between the Foundation and researchers at Future of Humanity Institute and the Global Priorities Project at Oxford Martin School at Oxford University.

The Report ➥ http://www.globalchallenges.org/repo...eport-2016.pdf

Executive Summary ➥ http://www.globalchallenges.org/repo...%20Summary.pdf

These must be crack IPCC statisticians coming up with that result. I know a few people that have died in car wrecks, but so far, those who died through a human mass extinction event have escaped my notice. Maybe that is because there never has been one and people die in car crashes daily.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Classic...
The MMGW Cult also believes in UFOs...
Might as well tune into The Alex Jones Show.
Pay the Carbon Tax or face extinction...who are these ignorant masses?

[jackdale]

Make sure you catch the last 2 minutes.

https://youtu.be/9UCdFbyL8y0