How many people have died due to climate change?

[Patrick Chewing]

Does anyone have these figures?




https://i.imgflip.com/vks0n.jpg

[ZeN]

Go to to the doctor OP...

[DeuceWallaces]

[QUOTE]Review

Nature 438, 310-317 (17 November 2005) | doi:10.1038/nature04188

Impact of regional climate change on human health

Jonathan A. Patz1,2, Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum3, Tracey Holloway1 & Jonathan A. Foley1

Abstract

The World Health Organisation estimates that the warming and precipitation trends due to anthropogenic climate change of the past 30 years already claim over 150,000 lives annually. Many prevalent human diseases are linked to climate fluctuations, from cardiovascular mortality and respiratory illnesses due to heatwaves, to altered transmission of infectious diseases and malnutrition from crop failures. Uncertainty remains in attributing the expansion or resurgence of diseases to climate change, owing to lack of long-term, high-quality data sets as well as the large influence of socio-economic factors and changes in immunity and drug resistance. Here we review the growing evidence that climate–health relationships pose increasing health risks under future projections of climate change and that the warming trend over recent decades has already contributed to increased morbidity and mortality in many regions of the world. Potentially vulnerable regions include the temperate latitudes, which are projected to warm disproportionately, the regions around the Pacific and Indian oceans that are currently subjected to large rainfall variability due to the El Ni

[senelcoolidge]

Atlantis had a population between 6-155 million depending on which source you believe. So that's a lot of people that climate change killed off so many centuries ago.

[GIF REACTION]

Atlantis had a population between 6-155 million depending on which source you believe. So that's a lot of people that climate change killed off so many centuries ago.
I've researched Atlantis and I highly doubt it existed. The mythology goes very far back

[bdreason]

Let's wait until NYC is under water and then we'll take a poll.

[Akrazotile]

Actually it wouldnt be the worst thing in the world if climate change killed off some of the weak :confusedshrug:

[dkmwise]

For people who believe climate change will lead to the disaster that some are predicting, they should be the first ones out there stocking up on guns and ammo. If all the coastal cities go under water, thats a lot of people moving inland looking for new home.

[gigantes]

how many people die due to heat waves? starvation? deadly storms? mosquito-borne disease? worsening economic situations?

all those things are exacerbated by climate change, moreso every year.

[Patrick Chewing]

how many people die due to heat waves? starvation? deadly storms? mosquito-borne disease? worsening economic situations?

all those things are exacerbated by climate change, moreso every year.


1. Heat waves aren't a new phenomenon
2. Starvation? That's more economic combined with overpopulation
3. Deadly Storms? There's been deadly storms since the Earth's creation.
4. Mosquito-borne diseases? Look at answer above.
5. Economic situations? Poor economies cause climate change?

[CavaliersFTW]

That's like asking how many people died from the great depression...

"climate change" as in, the accelerated by man rise in global temperature and all the repercussions that follow suit are not easy to point fingers at for specific events - as "climate" is not a specific event in and of itself but rather a defined condition based on averages over the course of a year. Things like weather and economic prosperity are affected by climate and those things can impact human lives.

For example does excessive rain kill people? (yes... floods) Some regions rain more now or have events of weather where so much rain happens that water tables in the soil or infrastructure for drainage is not in place to handle it. Does lack of rain kill people? (yes drought) Some regions are getting less and less rain.

Forest fire, famine, floods, natural disasters happening in regions where infrastructure was not built to handle those natural desasters because historically those regions did not have them. Even cold or hot weather exposure kills people. Not to mention the slow economic decline that can happen in regions that were once fertile or conducive to livestock that are no longer producing.

[Patrick Chewing]

^ But these are all natural Earth occurrences.


Climate change is such a broad term, that I'm afraid these people crying about climate change do not fully grasp how old the Earth is and how the Earth works. Only the low-IQ voter will believe that "Climate Change" is actually a real issue when all they had to do was pay attention in Biology class in High School to understand that so long as there are more humans on this Earth, there will be more human deaths on this Earth. And if they are caused by mother nature, then it would not have mattered if humans were there or not, Mother Nature would have continued on her course. To actually sit there and believe that humans are causing the Earth's waters to heat up is completely asinine, when there is clearly irrefutable data that the Earth's average temperature hasn't increased or decreased in the last 15 or so years.

So what used to be called global warming eventually became a farce, and now certain politicians want to peddle this climate change nonsense and fool the masses into believing that this is some sort of new phenomenon just because we want to drive trucks instead of Prius's.

[Nick Young]

From 2005
Wow. Muslims kill more people per year than Global Warming.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-content/uploads/boden.png

Let's not even talk about how many more mouths fossil-fuel powered agriculture has been able to feed while using significantly less land.

[CavaliersFTW]

^ But these are all natural Earth occurrences.


Climate change is such a broad term, that I'm afraid these people crying about climate change do not fully grasp how old the Earth is and how the Earth works. Only the low-IQ voter will believe that "Climate Change" is actually a real issue when all they had to do was pay attention in Biology class in High School to understand that so long as there are more humans on this Earth, there will be more human deaths on this Earth. And if they are caused by mother nature, then it would not have mattered if humans were there or not, Mother Nature would have continued on her course. To actually sit there and believe that humans are causing the Earth's waters to heat up is completely asinine, when there is clearly irrefutable data that the Earth's average temperature hasn't increased or decreased in the last 15 or so years.

So what used to be called global warming eventually became a farce, and now certain politicians want to peddle this climate change nonsense and fool the masses into believing that this is some sort of new phenomenon just because we want to drive trucks instead of Prius's.
Ewing, I get it, you want to deny the impact of climate change.

Nobody who lives in a region that used to grow crops for 1,000 years wants to have to abandon their whole ****ing town or city and migrate hundreds or thousands of miles somewhere else because the living they and their ancestors could once make is no longer sustainable due to the average number of days of good weather rapidly changing within a few years or decades to become worse than it used to be. This is climate change.

When ice sheets melt ocean levels rise. Human civilization is built around coast lines. Let's just ignore climate change intervention, let's risk places like New York City being under 8 feet of water.

Because you don't seem convinced climate change has impact on human lives. Smart idea, very progressive thinking.
But that's all you're doing is denying it.

[gigantes]

1. Heat waves aren't a new phenomenon
2. Starvation? That's more economic combined with overpopulation
3. Deadly Storms? There's been deadly storms since the Earth's creation.
4. Mosquito-borne diseases? Look at answer above.
5. Economic situations? Poor economies cause climate change?
1,3,4-- i didn't say climate change created those things. i said CC worsens those things.

2-- what you mentioned are factors, but the fact is that crop efficiency continues to decline due to CC. think more heat waves, more unstable rain, more pests.

5-- climate change is hard on economies in many different ways. worsening economies is hard on people in any number of ways.

[Patrick Chewing]

Ewing, I get it, you want to deny the impact of climate change.

But that's all you're doing is denying it.

Nobody who lives in a region that used to grow crops for 1,000 years wants to have to abandon their whole ****ing town or city and migrate hundreds or thousands of miles somewhere else because the living they and their ancestors could once make is no longer sustainable due to the average number of days of good weather rapidly changing within a few years or decades to become worse than it used to be. This is climate change.


Who is denying it? The only thing I'm denying is this belief that man is affecting the Earth's climate. Climate change happens normally.



And then for these political hacks and assclowns like the President to say that terrorism is a direct result of climate change is preposterous.

Climate change is a natural occurrence. There is nothing to be made from it. Period.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Ewing, I get it, you want to deny the impact of climate change.

But that's all you're doing is denying it.

Nobody who lives in a region that used to grow crops for 1,000 years wants to have to abandon their whole ****ing town or city and migrate hundreds or thousands of miles somewhere else because the living they and their ancestors could once make is no longer sustainable due to the average number of days of good weather rapidly changing within a few years or decades to become worse than it used to be. This is climate change.


Actually there has been a "hiatus" in the warming of the earth. There has not been significant warming on the global scale since 1998 (iirc). Not to say climate change isn't a real thing, but this lunacy about how every skeptic is labled a "denier" without the actual facts being discussed makes this kind of like a religion. Heck the positives of fossil fuels can also never be discussed.

Also, there is this ridiculous idea that climate change created ISIS lmao.

[KNOW1EDGE]

How many people have died from being alive?

[CavaliersFTW]

Who is denying it? The only thing I'm denying is this belief that man is affecting the Earth's climate. Climate change happens normally.



And then for these political hacks and assclowns like the President to say that terrorism is a direct result of climate change is preposterous.

Climate change is a natural occurrence. There is nothing to be made from it. Period.
If you deny that man is changing the climate you're a huge ****ing retard.

Did you deny that your math teacher was solving math problems on the chalkboard just because you couldn't understand how to understand the data, the problem and the solution?

This is the same thing. It's literally just a matter of can you understand the data. If you can't don't be afraid to admit it. But climate change isn't an idea, it is an observation.


ob

[RoundMoundOfReb]

The most disturbing climate-change related statistic is probably that 27% of democrats want anthropocentric climate change doubters to be prosecuted.

[CavaliersFTW]

Actually there has been a "hiatus" in the warming of the earth. There has not been significant warming on the global scale since 1998 (iirc). Not to say climate change isn't a real thing, but this lunacy about how every skeptic is labled a "denier" without the actual facts being discussed makes this kind of like a religion. Heck the positives of fossil fuels can also never be discussed.

Also, there is this ridiculous idea that climate change created ISIS lmao.
Actually it hasn't, it's still rising. Climate changed isn't even focused year to year or just looked at in 10 year stretches. It's measured over the course of hundreds and thousands of years. The trend is still a sharp upward rise in temperature.

[DCL]

nobody cares now because it's tomorrow's problem.

humans are natural procrastinators. we're dumber than squirrels in some ways. look at 65 year olds' zero savings when they enter retirement...

you'll probably be over 80, 100, 120, or dead when it becomes an urgent survival issue.

it's probably your grandkid's problem.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Actually it hasn't, it's still rising.

The rise has significantly slowed down to say the least. The rise has been much lower than what had been predicted.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/images/uncert.png

[KNOW1EDGE]

Climate change aka ManBearPig

[CavaliersFTW]

The rise has significantly slowed down to say the least. The rise has been much lower than what had been predicted.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/images/uncert.png
See the above post.

Nothing has 'slowed down'.

Climate data isn't alarming in 10 or 20 year stretches. It's alarming in 100 and 200 year stretches.

You have peaks and valleys year to year, even decade to decade, you have to graph it over hundreds of years and compare it with ice core data of thousands of years and c02 emissions.

Then you see - oh shit we dumped a **** load more c02 into the atmosphere than has ever happened "naturally".

Then you see - oh shit the earths climate is intrinsically linked with c02 in the atmosphere be it naturally or otherwise.

Then you see - oh shit over the past 200 years as we dumped c02 into the atmosphere, the earth's temperature did in fact spike up dramatically fast - faster than it ever did in the past million years of ice core data.


.....Because of that c02 we put into the air.




And it's not a political idea, it's an observation.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Actually it hasn't, it's still rising. Climate changed isn't even focused year to year or just looked at in 10 year stretches. It's measured over the course of hundreds and thousands of years. The trend is still a sharp upward rise in temperature.

What percentage of climate change is anthroprogenic?

What are the consequences of climate change? Are we talking doomsday or a slightly warmer planet?

Do the benefits of preventing climate change outway the benefits of fossil fuel usage?

If you want to change law that will ban or significantly curtail fossil fuel usage, that will have a significant ecnomic impact, possibly leading to the starvation of countless people (without fossil fuel powered agriculture) these questions need to be answered.

Also, developing countries like China and India are never going to go along with this. Slightly lower living standards in the west means very little, slightly lower living standards in 3rd world countries actually means a lot.

[CavaliersFTW]

Roundmoundofreb

That chart you posted of 1998 to now... that's the purple line of this chart.

The blue line and purple lines represents the average temperatures in their time frames.

Notice.. it's still rising.

http://www.alberniweather.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/trend-since-1998.png

[RoundMoundOfReb]

See the above post.

Nothing has 'slowed down'.

Climate data isn't alarming in 10 or 20 year stretches. It's alarming in 100 and 200 year stretches.

You have peaks and valleys year to year, even decade to decade, you have to graph it over hundreds of years and compare it with ice core data of thousands of years and c02 emissions.

Then you see - oh shit we dumped a **** load more c02 into the atmosphere than has ever happened "naturally".

Then you see - oh shit the earths climate is intrinsically linked with c02 in the atmosphere be it naturally or otherwise.

Then you see - oh shit over the past 200 years as we dumped c02 into the atmosphere, the earth's temperature did in fact spike up dramatically fast - faster than it ever did in the past million years of ice core data.


.....Because of that c02 we put into the air.




And it's not a political idea, it's an observation.

Once again, I'm not saying anthropogenic climate change isn't real - in reality I do believe it (maybe not to the level you do). I'm just saying that the argument that the recent upswing in terrorism is due to climate change is nonsense, since there hasn't really been any evidence to suggest warming in recent years.

[gigantes]

nobody cares now because it's tomorrow's problem.

humans are natural procrastinators. we're dumber than squirrels in some ways. look at 65 year olds' zero savings when they enter retirement...

you'll probably be over 80, 100, 120, or dead when it becomes an urgent survival issue.

it's probably your grandkid's problem.
wrong, right, wrong and wrong.

it's been a problem for some years, is a big problem right now, and is on track to become a mass extinction event. just look at this year's coming el ni

[CavaliersFTW]

What percentage of climate change is anthroprogenic?

What are the consequences of climate change? Are we talking doomsday or a slightly warmer planet?

Do the benefits of preventing climate change outway the benefits of fossil fuel usage?

If you want to change law that will ban or significantly curtail fossil fuel usage, that will have a significant ecnomic impact, possibly leading to the starvation of countless people (without fossil fuel powered agriculture) these questions need to be answered.

Also, developing countries like China and India are never going to go along with this. Slightly lower living standards in the west means very little, slightly lower living standards in 3rd world countries actually means a lot.
The average global rise in temperature we experienced in the past 300 years is

ENTIRELY

Caused by humans.

This isn't a "the reality is probably something in between" scenario.

Ice core data reveals that the earth should either be stable for several thousand more years, or cooling down over the span of several thousand years right now had we not pumped it full of c02 and made it RISE in temperature in only a few HUNDRED years.

We not only changed the natural climate cycle, we reversed the direction it was predicted to go naturally.

Nature doesn't spike in temperature during warm phases. We're in a warm phase. The only way nature would have gone from here is down. We made it go up. Oops.

https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/ice-core-co2-record-800000-years.jpg

I swear none of those that deny this know how to read a ****ing graph. It's data. It's right in front of our eyes.

Weather or not we can or will cooperate to do anything about it - that's the political question. That's the one we won't have answers to unless we first off agree that it's happening and second off, start to propose ideas to fix it and make decisions and take actions.

[Nanners]

the thing thats going to suck with global warming wont be the actual warming, but side effects like ocean acidification.

if the ocean continues to become more acidic (and it will unless the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere goes down), it could wipe out all kinds of corals, fish, planktons, algeas... and other ocean dwelling critters. Losing certain planktons or algeas could potentially be catastrophic as they play an important role in the foundation of the global food chain.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

The average global rise in temperature we experienced in the past 300 years is

ENTIRELY

Caused by humans.

This isn't a "the reality is probably something in between" scenario.

Ice core data reveals that the earth should either be stable for several thousand more years, or cooling down over the span of several thousand years right now had we not pumped it full of c02 and made it RISE in temperature in only a few HUNDRED years.

We not only changed the natural climate cycle, we reversed the direction it was predicted to go naturally.

Nature doesn't spike in temperature during warm phases. We're in a warm phase. The only way nature would have gone from here is down. We made it go up. Oops.

https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/ice-core-co2-record-800000-years.jpg

I swear none of those that deny this know how to read a ****ing graph. It's data. It's right in front of our eyes.

Weather or not we can or will cooperate to do anything about it - that's the political question. That's the one we won't have answers to unless we first off agree that it's happening and second off, start to propose ideas to fix it and make decisions and take actions.
would like to read this study. link?

[Akrazotile]

the thing thats going to suck with global warming wont be the actual warming, but side effects like ocean acidification.

if the ocean continues to become more acidic (and it will unless the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere goes down), it could wipe out all kinds of corals, fish, planktons, algeas... and other ocean dwelling critters. Losing certain planktons or algeas could potentially be catastrophic as they play an important role in the foundation of the global food chain.


But if Americans just recycle and convert to hybrids, everything will be okay wont it?

[CavaliersFTW]

would like to read this study. link?
There isn't one simple study you can read. No such thing as an "easy button" to understand climate change summed up like people sum things up with a meme. What you need to know is that there are people dedicating their entire lives to understanding it - professionals with PHD's working in teams, living in the arctic, entire Universities, multiple nations of the developed world. And this is what those highly educated people who are out to find and collect objective data conclude:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Climate_science_opinion2.png

All I can say is, try and brush up a little bit at a time:

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

It isn't just an idea. It's data. It's observation. Done by scientists who's life objective is to collect information - and usually specialized such as a specialized arctic climatologist, or a North American or European. Or even ones working for Nasa studying earth climate to compare it with other planets. Or local meteorologists. Or geologists. They all INDEPENDENTALY come to the same conclusions. It's not driven by politicians who's objectives are to create ideologies. But it sure gets swiftly denied by some of them.

[Patrick Chewing]

the thing thats going to suck with global warming wont be the actual warming, but side effects like ocean acidification.

if the ocean continues to become more acidic (and it will unless the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere goes down), it could wipe out all kinds of corals, fish, planktons, algeas... and other ocean dwelling critters. Losing certain planktons or algeas could potentially be catastrophic as they play an important role in the foundation of the global food chain.


This guy. To date, we have explored less than 5% of the world's ocean. So to make these assertions is completely reckless on your part.


http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/exploration.html

[DCL]

[QUOTE=gigantes]wrong, right, wrong and wrong.

it's been a problem for some years, is a big problem right now, and is on track to become a mass extinction event. just look at this year's coming el ni

[Nanners]

But if Americans just recycle and convert to hybrids, everything will be okay wont it?

yeah dude exactly

[Nanners]

This guy. To date, we have explored less than 5% of the world's ocean. So to make these assertions is completely reckless on your part.


http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/exploration.html

calling you a retard is insulting to the mentally disabled

[Patrick Chewing]

calling you a retard is insulting to the mentally disabled


You're the one pretending to be a Marine Biologist. You're nothing more than a clown.


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/d4/f0/be/d4f0be9a9b612e9a14c9842e31d956c2.jpg

[Nanners]

You're the one pretending to be a Marine Biologist. You're nothing more than a clown.

im not pretending to be anything dipshit. all i did was read a wikipedia page

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

[NumberSix]

The average global rise in temperature we experienced in the past 300 years is

ENTIRELY

Caused by humans.

This isn't a "the reality is probably something in between" scenario.

Ice core data reveals that the earth should either be stable for several thousand more years, or cooling down over the span of several thousand years right now had we not pumped it full of c02 and made it RISE in temperature in only a few HUNDRED years.

We not only changed the natural climate cycle, we reversed the direction it was predicted to go naturally.

Nature doesn't spike in temperature during warm phases. We're in a warm phase. The only way nature would have gone from here is down. We made it go up. Oops.

https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/ice-core-co2-record-800000-years.jpg

I swear none of those that deny this know how to read a ****ing graph. It's data. It's right in front of our eyes.

Weather or not we can or will cooperate to do anything about it - that's the political question. That's the one we won't have answers to unless we first off agree that it's happening and second off, start to propose ideas to fix it and make decisions and take actions.
That awkward moment when CavaliersFTW finds out that Co2 rises or falls AFTER the temperature rises or falls will be spectacular.

Temperature = horse
Co2 level = cart


And how exactly did you people get it into your head that Co2 is some kind of poison gas or something? It's what all plant life lives on. It's perfectly fine. Can you imagine if lunatics were running around with their hair on fire screaming that there was too much oxygen in the air and frantically chopping down all the trees for outputting all that evil oxygen?

[RoundMoundOfReb]

There isn't an easy button to understand climate change. There are people dedicating their entire lives to understanding it - professionals with PHD's working in teams, living in the arctic, entire Universities, multiple nations of the developed world.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Climate_science_opinion2.png

All I can say is, try and brush up:

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

It isn't just an idea. It's data. It's observation. Done by scientists who's objective is to collect information, not politicians who's objectives are to create ideologies.


The actual data you posted is much more convincing and relevant than some "consensus". The consensus has been wrong before.

Also, noticed that when the graph you posted is overlayed you get:

http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/files/cc/figures/icecore_records.jpg

The co2 levels actually seem to lag temperature. Genuinely curious as to whether or not you know the reason for this?

[Patrick Chewing]

http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/files/cc/figures/icecore_records.jpg




Oh my look at all those temperature spikes throughout time!

[MMKM]

calling you a retard is insulting to the mentally disabled

Actually, calling anyone a retard is insulting to the mentally disabled.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Nvm just found it. Turns out warming ocean temperatures cause an increase in CO2. Most climate scientists seem to think that CO2 is both thee cause and the effect of warming.

However, this does show that graphical correlation you showed is not as simple proof as you'd like to think it is.

[Nanners]

Actually, calling anyone a retard is insulting to the mentally disabled.

different type of insult, but yes :oldlol:

[CavaliersFTW]

The actual data you posted is much more convincing and relevant than some "consensus". The consensus has been wrong before.

Also, noticed that when the graph you posted is overlayed you get:

http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/files/cc/figures/icecore_records.jpg

The co2 levels actually seem to lag temperature. Genuinely curious as to whether or not you know the reason for this?
The consensus in this case is not one of 50/50 or lacking in data - it is not being debated by pseudo scientists/alchemists of human past who are trying to determine if the sun revolves around us or do we revolve around the sun for example.

The scientific method of today is as strong and openly challenged today around the globe as it has ever been and data collection and study is as meticulous as it has ever been. And the consensus is of a 95% certainty among the actual scientific community (that is, the people who's minds are actually trained to matter and make educated decisions on this) that it is caused by humans.

When scientific ideas have been turned upside down in the past, it hasn't been in events as strongly believed or supported with data as this.

[Patrick Chewing]

The consensus in this case is not one of 50/50 - and it is not of pseudo scientists/alchemists of human past.

The scientific method of today is as strong and openly challenged today around the globe as it has ever been. And the consensus is of a 95% certainty that it is caused by humans.

When scientific ideas have been turned upside down in the past, it hasn't been in events as strongly believed or supported with data as this.


But what caused the warming 100,000 years ago? 300,000 years ago?

[MMKM]

different type of insult, but yes :oldlol:

I have heard moms and even teachers call people retarded. We have to be politically correct towards all the groups who lobby for equal treatment, but for groups who can't defend themselves it's fair game. I guess that's why it's called "politically correct" instead of "morally correct."

[RoundMoundOfReb]

The consensus in this case is not one of 50/50 or lacking in data - it is not being debated by pseudo scientists/alchemists of human past who are trying to determine if the sun revolves around us or do we revolve around the sun for example.

The scientific method of today is as strong and openly challenged today around the globe as it has ever been and data collection and study is as meticulous as it has ever been. And the consensus is of a 95% certainty that it is caused by humans.

When scientific ideas have been turned upside down in the past, it hasn't been in events as strongly believed or supported with data as this.

1. One of the groups in that chart somehow has 101 percent support adding both categories.

2. "200 most published climate scientists" isn't exactly an unbiased group. Believe it or not I'm actually a student in the sciences and know people who work as gov't scientists. Not exactly as unbiased as you'd like to think they are. I'll leave it at that.

3. Define "significant"

The most recent study you showed actually have 16% (of a biased group) who think it isn't "significant".

[Nanners]

I have heard moms and even teachers call people retarded. We have to be politically correct towards all the groups who lobby for equal treatment, but for groups who can't defend themselves it's fair game. I guess that's why it's called "politically correct" instead of "morally correct."

well i would say that in everyday use the word "retard" has kind of taken on a new definition, similar to how when someone on the internet calls you a "******" they arent literally saying you are homosexual.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Also I hope you're off the notion of using that one graph as be all end all proof. From what I read, from a pro-anrthronprogenic climate change site, CO2 lags ocean warming (as well as preceding it). It's not some 1-to-1 causation like you were presenting.

[Patrick Chewing]

But what caused the warming 100,000 years ago? 300,000 years ago?


Notice how Cavs hasn't answered this question yet.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Notice how Cavs hasn't answered this question yet.
I believe it has something to do with the earth's orbit.

[NumberSix]

I think we should burn more oil. Make it so hot that all the co2 burns away and the. It gets really cold.

[MMKM]

well i would say that in everyday use the word "retard" has kind of taken on a new definition, similar to how when someone on the internet calls you a "******" they arent literally saying you are homosexual.

I completely agree. I don't think people even think twice about it, but the truth is I've never heard women or professionals in the work place call someone a ******. That has basically been categorized as hate speech at this point. And that is largely due to the fact that gay and lesbian groups have organized and gained tremendous political power in the last two decades. So the word ****** didn't suddenly become hate speech because everyone woke up one day and agreed it was mean spirited and offensive; saying ****** got stigmatized because of organized social pressure. Mentally handicapped people don't have that type of social and political influence. So it is basically open season for hate speech against them. The point I'm trying to make is, the slurs that are taboo vs the slurs people use without thinking twice have nothing to do with morality. They're just based on social/political influence. If it were based at all on morality, we naturally wouldn't use slurs that reference the most vulnerable and helpless people.

[TripleA]

So the argument is if Humans activity is causing climate change?

[MMKM]

well i would say that in everyday use the word "retard" has kind of taken on a new definition, similar to how when someone on the internet calls you a "******" they arent literally saying you are homosexual.

I completely agree. I don't think people even think twice about it, but the truth is I've never heard women or professionals in the work place call someone a ******. That has basically been categorized as hate speech at this point. And that is largely due to the fact that gay and lesbian groups have organized and gained tremendous political power in the last two decades. So the word ****** didn't suddenly become hate speech because everyone woke up one day and agreed it was mean spirited and offensive; saying ****** got stigmatized because of organized social pressure. Mentally handicapped people don't have that type of social and political influence. So it is basically open season for hate speech against them. The point I'm trying to make is, the slurs that are taboo vs the slurs people use without thinking twice have nothing to do with morality. They're just based on social/political influence. If it were based at all on morality, we naturally wouldn't use slurs that reference the most vulnerable and helpless people.

Case in point; I spelled the word ****@tt correctly above three times and it got blocked out as profanity/hate speech. I can write retard retard retard retard retard, is that a censored word? Why not?https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6HgPovlj88Y

[NumberSix]

I completely agree. I don't think people even think twice about it, but the truth is I've never heard women or professionals in the work place call someone a ******. That has basically been categorized as hate speech at this point. And that is largely due to the fact that gay and lesbian groups have organized and gained tremendous political power in the last two decades. So the word ****** didn't suddenly become hate speech because everyone woke up one day and agreed it was mean spirited and offensive; saying ****** got stigmatized because of organized social pressure. Mentally handicapped people don't have that type of social and political influence. So it is basically open season for hate speech against them. The point I'm trying to make is, the slurs that are taboo vs the slurs people use without thinking twice have nothing to do with morality. They're just based on social/political influence. If it were based at all on morality, we naturally wouldn't use slurs that reference the most vulnerable and helpless people.
Retarded isn't a "hate slur". It's a proper descriptive word.

re

[Nanners]

I completely agree. I don't think people even think twice about it, but the truth is I've never heard women or professionals in the work place call someone a ******. That has basically been categorized as hate speech at this point. And that is largely due to the fact that gay and lesbian groups have organized and gained tremendous political power in the last two decades. So the word ****** didn't suddenly become hate speech because everyone woke up one day and agreed it was mean spirited and offensive; saying ****** got stigmatized because of organized social pressure. Mentally handicapped people don't have that type of social and political influence. So it is basically open season for hate speech against them. The point I'm trying to make is, the slurs that are taboo vs the slurs people use without thinking twice have nothing to do with morality. They're just based on social/political influence. If it were based at all on morality, we naturally wouldn't use slurs that reference the most vulnerable and helpless people.

Case in point; I spelled the word ****@tt correctly above three times and it got blocked out as profanity/hate speech. I can write retard retard retard retard retard, is that a censored word? Why not?https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6HgPovlj88Y

cant say i disagree with any of this.

what are your thoughts on the word "redskin"?

[gigantes]

Notice how Cavs hasn't answered this question yet.
what makes you think he knows the answer? it's obviously a complex issue, so are you just trying to make him research a bunch of stuff and then get back to you with a carefully-worded answer that you'll probably ignore anyway?

why are you really asking about big climate shifts in history? can't you look them up yourself if you're really interested? are you just trying to roundabout-suggest that it's all cyclical anyway so 'yadda-yadda anthroporphic CC is just hooey'...?

so many questions for a block of wood to try to answer. :(

[NumberSix]

How much co2 is put into the air by feminists running their yap?

[Patrick Chewing]

what makes you think he knows the answer? it's obviously a complex issue, so are you just trying to make him research a bunch of stuff and then get back to you with a carefully-worded answer that you'll probably ignore anyway?

why are you really asking about big climate shifts in history? can't you look them up yourself if you're really interested? are you just trying to roundabout-suggest that it's all cyclical anyway so 'yadda-yadda anthroporphic CC is just hooey'...?

so many questions for a block of wood to try to answer. :(


Because you can't come out like a pompous ass and assert that humans are the direct result of climate change or global warming, and not be able to explain what were the causes of global warming 300,000 years ago when humanity's footprint was barely a blip on the Earth's radar.

If we look at the evidence objectively, one can conclude that this is just a natural cycle caused by powers and forces outside of humanity's control.

[gigantes]

not denying any of it but i don't think it's acting that fast.

please kill me if i'm still here a decade later to debate with you. :lol
well, climate scientists and scientific bodies basically say that it's acting that fast, but i hear they're just a bunch of kooks running an elaborate scam. pretty soon they'll probably all be safely tucked in with bernie madoff. :D

[gigantes]

Because you can't come out like a pompous ass and assert that humans are the direct result of climate change or global warming, and not be able to explain what were the causes of global warming 300,000 years ago when humanity's footprint was barely a blip on the Earth's radar.

If we look at the evidence objectively, one can conclude that this is just a natural cycle caused by powers and forces outside of humanity's control.
haven't you, in your life, ever gotten the sense that if you know jack-shit about an issue then you're probably not very qualified to give a professional opinion on it?

at worst, people like me and cavs and whoever else are basically running with what climate scientists and science orgs are saying, trying to understand it, and trying to debate from that understanding.

what kind of sources are you using for your understanding...?

[Patrick Chewing]

haven't you, in your life, ever gotten the sense that if you know jack-shit about an issue then you're probably not very qualified to give a professional opinion on it?

at worst, people like me and cavs and whoever else are basically running with what climate scientists and science orgs are saying, trying to understand it, and trying to debate from that understanding.

what kind of sources are you using for your understanding...?

I think none of us should come to any conclusion. An understanding of climate, the Earth, the Sun, etc. is still in its infancy.

The problem I have is that this has been politicized to no end, when I truly think this is a non-issue, and world leaders should be focused on more pressing issues. I mean we have a President going on television stating that there is a correlation between climate change and the uptick in terrorism. :banghead:

[Akrazotile]

I completely agree. I don't think people even think twice about it, but the truth is I've never heard women or professionals in the work place call someone a ******. That has basically been categorized as hate speech at this point. And that is largely due to the fact that gay and lesbian groups have organized and gained tremendous political power in the last two decades. So the word ****** didn't suddenly become hate speech because everyone woke up one day and agreed it was mean spirited and offensive; saying ****** got stigmatized because of organized social pressure. Mentally handicapped people don't have that type of social and political influence. So it is basically open season for hate speech against them. The point I'm trying to make is, the slurs that are taboo vs the slurs people use without thinking twice have nothing to do with morality. They're just based on social/political influence. If it were based at all on morality, we naturally wouldn't use slurs that reference the most vulnerable and helpless people.


A lot of it does have to do with the ability of the group to speak out en masse. But a lot of it also has to do with the liberal flow chart of presumed insecurity.

The more insecure and vulnerable, and susceptible to hurt feelings liberals feel a particular demographic is, the more voraciously protective they are of them.
That's why in a time of multiple terror attacks on white people around the globe, white liberals are speaking out against unfair labeling of muslims :oldlol:


What's also amusing is that the word ****** is seen as much more damnable than midget or retard.

Liberals literally pity black folks worse than people that have down syndrome or are 3 feet tall. :lol

[gigantes]

I think none of us should come to any conclusion. An understanding of climate, the Earth, the Sun, etc. is still in its infancy.

The problem I have is that this has been politicized to no end, when I truly think this is a non-issue, and world leaders should be focused on more pressing issues. I mean we have a President going on television stating that there is a correlation between climate change and the uptick in terrorism. :banghead:
i feel sorry for you on one hand and sorry for myself on the other, because i don't have the kind of mental freedom that you do. it sounds like kind of a blast.

[Patrick Chewing]

i feel sorry for you on one hand and sorry for myself on the other, because i don't have the kind of mental freedom that you do. it sounds like kind of a blast.


That's beta talk.

[Akrazotile]

I think none of us should come to any conclusion. An understanding of climate, the Earth, the Sun, etc. is still in its infancy.

The problem I have is that this has been politicized to no end, when I truly think this is a non-issue, and world leaders should be focused on more pressing issues. I mean we have a President going on television stating that there is a correlation between climate change and the uptick in terrorism. :banghead:


I believe it is an issue, albeit a low priority one, especially relative to other things going on, but the problem is that we never actually just stop and FIX any one problem. We just keep treating it, because that's what special interests want. Whatever the problem is, there are groups that invest heavily into keeping the problem perpetuated, so they can continue to profit from treating it. And at the same time, the solution is often not pretty anyhow, and entitled, self-important libs can't stomach reality enough to actually do the dirty work.

Treating AIDS in Africa. How about just sterilizing every African with AIDS? Problem solved, right? But they'll hide behind a moral argument (out of one side of their mouth, while slamming the idea of religious morals from the other) in order to manipulate the sheep population to support the idea of lots and lots of Africans being treated for AIDS, for many generations! With tax payer money, going straight into the pocket of Big Pharma, to treat strangers on another continent who live in desperate poverty even if they DO survive the AIDS. Hooray!

We could wipe out terror in one fell swoop. Identify the regions in the middle east least supportive of Islamic terror, evacuate those people, then bomb the shit out of everyone else. Problem solved. But nahh. Defense is big business! Long-term terror is great. Lots of money in it. We have to do a lil drone strike here, then a lil combat operation over there, then a lil publicity thing where soldiers take pics with iraqi school children, and on and on.

We could reduce the enormous debt that social security and medicare have us staring down the gun barrel of by simply telling old people sorry, but we are limiting how much support you're getting at 80, 90 years old, but nope! Not politically feasible cause those motherfvckers vote. And so politicians don't wanna do anything, and loser cucks like deucewallace NEED to take sympathetic sides of issues in order to have some kind of social leg to stand on. Otherwise, he's a complete nothing. Defending the side of sympathy is his entire thing. Otherwise he's just an awkward, picked-on, unathletic, ugly, uninteresting, non-analytical, non-funny, boring beta. Issues of hypersensitivity unite the liberal misfits and give them something to feel superior to others about, because they have no tangible qualities to actually lean on.


Everythign in the ****ing world is about posturing, because 99% of people can't handle the truth.

[gigantes]

That's beta talk.
in your world i imagine it is indeed.

[DeuceWallaces]

High comedy watching internet armchair scientists argue the merits of climate change.

[MMKM]

cant say i disagree with any of this.

what are your thoughts on the word "redskin"?

I would say that applies situationally only. Redskin can be used as a derogatory remark, but as a mascot I think it's a symbol of strength. I'm Irish, I'm not offended by Notre Dame using a fighting leprechaun as a mascot. I'm actually pretty darn proud of it. I think if I was a Native American I would like the Washington redskins because it's pretty badass that a football team would want to identify with that. So basically what I'm trying to say is, if a pro sports team wants to name their team after you, I'd take that as a compliment. But at the same time, if you are in an argument with a Native American and say "shut up you f@cking redskin," that clearly becomes a slur. So I think some words are more contextual. But the reason Redskins was chosen for an NFL team was clearly out of badass respect, because a redskin is tough like a lion bear Panther. On the same token, there's a reason no team names itself the retards, midgets etc. Because there is no positive connotation with those words at all.

Having said that mouth full, I will concede that it would be more respectful to just change the name to a specific tribal name (like the Florida State Seminoles) that doesn't have any element of slur in it. I think that would be a fair compromise. But in the meantime native Americans should recognize that the intent is to compliment, not to degrade.

[gigantes]

High comedy watching internet armchair scientists argue the merits of climate change.
where are these "armchair scientists" exactly? all i see are laypeople of various stripes, none of them claiming to be more than what they are.

question: is "high comedy" various laypeople knocking around an issue, or is it an arrogant asshole high in the clouds too self-righteous to agree with any of them on anything?

[Nick Young]

Is it true that the Earth has gone through five major ice ages?:confusedshrug:


Can anyone please explain how these ice ages began and ended?

[NumberSix]

Is it true that the Earth has gone through five major climate change ages?:confusedshrug:


Can anyone please explain how these ice ages began and ended?
Fixed.

[Akrazotile]

where are these "armchair scientists" exactly? all i see are laypeople of various stripes, none of them claiming to be more than what they are.

question: is "high comedy" various laypeople knocking around an issue, or is it an arrogant asshole high in the clouds too self-righteous to agree with any of them on anything?


The funny thing is, the guy who always steps in with the pretension of being a 'scientist' (deuce) is usually the least knowledgeable on the issues. He tells everyone they're wrong, but he never explains why (either because they're not, or he doesnt know).

He just wants to remind everyone he dutifully did all his homework assignments for 9 years to obtain a degree in the 'science' of forestry. And even though he has REMARKABLY little scientific insight, he seems to think others will admire him for having the degree :lol

[DeuceWallaces]

where are these "armchair scientists" exactly? all i see are laypeople of various stripes, none of them claiming to be more than what they are.

question: is "high comedy" various laypeople knocking around an issue, or is it an arrogant asshole high in the clouds too self-righteous to agree with any of them on anything?

Like every damn post.

As in all the people posting a handful of charts they found on a google search and then telling you their opinion on climate change; a very complex issue with a pretty sound scientific consensus already in place.

But then again you read about it on google, so, what the hell do I know.

[Nick Young]

Like every damn post.

As in all the people posting a handful of charts they found on a google search and then telling you their opinion on climate change; a very complex issue with a pretty sound scientific consensus already in place.

But then again you read about it on google, so, what the hell do I know.
Is it true that the Earth has gone through five major ice ages?


Can you please explain how these ice ages began and ended?

[NumberSix]

Is it true that the Earth has gone through five major ice ages?


Can you please explain how these ice ages began and ended?
Global warming and global colding. Duh.

[D-Wade316]

Is it true that the Earth has gone through five major ice ages?


Can you please explain how these ice ages began and ended?
How is this supposed to be a critique of today's climate change?

[Nick Young]

How is this supposed to be a critique of today's climate change?
It's not. It is a separate question I am asking. Do you know the answer? Can you please explain to me how the Earth went through five major ice ages?:confusedshrug:

[D-Wade316]

It's not. It is a separate question I am asking. Do you know the answer? Can you please explain to me how the Earth went through five major ice ages?:confusedshrug:
Quite clearly you were implying it as a critique on climate change, based on your previous posts and the responses of other posters.

[Nick Young]

Quite clearly you were implying it as a critique on climate change, based on your previous posts and the responses of other posters.
If you are going to resort to logical fallacy, personal attacks and deflection tactics, please leave the thread.


I am asking you a simple question. I wish to learn the answer.

Can you please explain how the five major ice ages began and ended?

You seem to know a lot about science and climate change and I wish to learn from you.
:confusedshrug:

[D-Wade316]

If you are going to resort to logical fallacy, personal attacks and deflection tactics, please leave the thread.


I am asking you a simple question. I wish to learn the answer.

Can you please explain how the five major ice ages began and ended?

You seem to know a lot about science and climate change and I wish to learn from you.
:confusedshrug:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

:confusedshrug:

[Nick Young]

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

:confusedshrug:
I do not understand these big science words.

Can you please explain in your own words in simple terms that I can understand how the five major ice ages began and ended?:confusedshrug:

[masonanddixon]

A shitload of Queenslanders with melanomas and even SCCs and BCCs.

The rates of melanoma here is over 2000x higher than that in mild regions.

If that isn't evidence of climate change I don't know what is.

[D-Wade316]

I do not understand these big science words.

Can you please explain in your own words in simple terms that I can understand how the five major ice ages began and ended?:confusedshrug:
From the same link.
[QUOTE]The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for either the large-scale ice age periods or the smaller ebb and flow of glacial

[Nick Young]

From the same link.
What? Scientists still aren't able to tell what caused the 5 major ice ages? Do they have any theories?:confusedshrug:

[Akrazotile]

What? Scientists still aren't able to tell what caused the 5 major ice ages? Do they have any theories?:confusedshrug:


Because the stupid redneck dinosaurs insisted on driving their stupid GAS GUZZLERS instead of a hybrid!!!!

[KyrieTheFuture]

Completely regardless of what you think about climate change, you'd have to be idiotic to think fossil fuels are the future of humanity, and all you're trying to do is stall your civilizations inevitable progress.

[BoutPractice]

"How many people have died from climate change" is such a strange question to begin with.

Not because it applies to climate change, but because the very phrasing betrays a complete lack of understanding of real world risk...

Would you board a plane if you knew it had mechanical faults - or better yet, had solid reasons to think someone has planted a bomb in it - just because it hasn't crashed yet?

If the answer is yes, then your genes won't be around for long.

And it's not a matter of your "opinion" about risk. Life itself will ruthlessly sort out those with wrong ideas about risk from those with correct ideas.

[travelingman]

Because the stupid redneck dinosaurs insisted on driving their stupid GAS GUZZLERS instead of a hybrid!!!!
http://i.imgur.com/5DsOPcl.gif

:facepalm

[Hawker]

A shitload of Queenslanders with melanomas and even SCCs and BCCs.

The rates of melanoma here is over 2000x higher than that in mild regions.

If that isn't evidence of climate change I don't know what is.

Is the rate the same between aboriginals and white queenslanders?

Australian ancestors are white as shit. Not used to the sunlight that they experience in Australia. That's probably more of the issue.

[gigantes]

Like every damn post.

As in all the people posting a handful of charts they found on a google search and then telling you their opinion on climate change; a very complex issue with a pretty sound scientific consensus already in place.

But then again you read about it on google, so, what the hell do I know.
alright, true.

but couldn't you help us out sometimes... us laypeople who got the message and are now trying to explain it to the (essentially) anti-science laypeople?

consider it a teachable moment, captain!

[dunksby]

Yep, it's only a problem if it's killing people, or in OP's specific case, it's only fun to follow if it's killing people.

[Nick Young]

Completely regardless of what you think about climate change, you'd have to be idiotic to think fossil fuels are the future of humanity, and all you're trying to do is stall your civilizations inevitable progress.
Do you know how the five major ice ages began and ended?:confusedshrug:


Does anyone out there on ISH know how the five major ice ages began and ended?

[Nanners]

A shitload of Queenslanders with melanomas and even SCCs and BCCs.

The rates of melanoma here is over 2000x higher than that in mild regions.

If that isn't evidence of climate change I don't know what is.

what? melanomas arent caused by climate change.

you are thinking of ozone depletion, an entirely different issue, and one that humanity has under control these days.

[KyrieTheFuture]

Do you know how the five major ice ages began and ended?:confusedshrug:


Does anyone out there on ISH know how the five major ice ages began and ended?
That has literally nothing to do with my post

[Nick Young]

That has literally nothing to do with my post
It is a seperate question related to your post about global warming.

Do you know how the five major ice ages began and ended?

Please explain in simple terms with your own wowrds so that even dum dums like me can understand. Thanks :)

I never said anything about my opinions on whether or not we should continue to rely on fossil fuels, or whether or not we should stall civilization's progress. Please refrain from straw man arguments and putting words in to peoples mouths. Thanks :)

[KyrieTheFuture]

It is a seperate question related to your post about global warming.

Do you know how the five major ice ages began and ended?

Please explain in simple terms with your own wowrds so that even dum dums like me can understand. Thanks :)

I never said anything about my opinions on whether or not we should continue to rely on fossil fuels, or whether or not we should stall civilization's progress. Please refrain from straw man arguments and putting words in to peoples mouths. Thanks :)
Why would I explain global warming to you? I haven't posted anything about global warming, or ice ages.

[DonD13]

8.

[masonanddixon]

Is the rate the same between aboriginals and white queenslanders?

Australian ancestors are white as shit. Not used to the sunlight that they experience in Australia. That's probably more of the issue.

No, Indigenous have almost no risk of skin cancer. Australian whites are no more fair skinned than other Europeans.

Your theory also doesn't explain why whites don't have similar rates of skin cancer in sub Saharan Africa.

There's an actual hole in the ozone layer. This is not deniable. There's also fish in the ocean who are developing skin cancers in Queensland.

[masonanddixon]

what? melanomas arent caused by climate change.

you are thinking of ozone depletion, an entirely different issue, and one that humanity has under control these days.

Ozone depletion causes climate change.