Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?

Thanks for the report that the Biden administration has approved selling more coal to China. Good old Beijing Joe.

 

China loves coal.

 

But you admitted Jack Hays is correct by agreeing he had a topic ban.

 

They are willing buyers is all that amounts to.

 

Quite the comprehensive rebuttal.

It's already persuaded two truth-discerning, clear-minded, rational, logic-employing, reasonable members to give it a like. Well done.

 

In the article actual sources supporting the claims, your reply was dead on arrival since you ranted and without a single cogent rebuttal:. You train story was irrelevant to chart you irrationally made fun of.

This chart that you mocked is the OFFICIAL database as shown here (LINK)

You still can't show where the climate emergency is.......

OOps.....

 

And yet, the magical number plotted is deaths per million population.

At a time when population is increasing exponentially. So any metric that is 'per million' population is bound to decrease, even if the problem is static or even increasing.

This is where the 'sceptics' are. Basically dishonest.

 

Because coal is cheap, easy to store and plentiful especially since the US has so much to provide now that we are out of the coal power plant business. It also means China can produce goods cheaper than oil based power plants. A win-win for those who don't care about the pollutants coal spews into the atmosphere.

 

And just like previous administrations, both Republicans and Democrats, Biden can continue to boast how the US is succeeding at lowering the emission of CO2. Hooray for the US!

 

You offer nothing but misstatements: I did not make fun of the chart; I pointed out that what that chart showed could not be correlated to the seriousness of the Climate crisis. It is but one variable, and it can only measure current effect, in that one indicator. My main point was that, beside there being many more effects beyond climate-related deaths, ALL of the effects are on a time delay, to play out with increasing impact, over many years (as climate is wont to do, as opposed to weather).

As to not showing where the emergency is, only someone who didn't read my post could make that patently false claim. The emergency is, among other places, in mass die-offs of animal &, eventually, plant life. The world's coral reefs, & the life with which healthy reefs teem, is the canary in the coal mine, on this front. There has already been a marked decline in the yields of many fisheries, not due merely to over-fishing. If we wait until the lower rungs in the chain of life have already been decimated, there will be no fix, as the repercussions inevitably wend their way up to our own rung.

 

One reason that deaths have declined since the beginning of the 20th century has to do with the availability of better technology to provide warnings and assistance to people in danger of dying.
Governments throughout the world provide more assistance to people in need than in the past.

This article from the libertarian website, reason.org, has some useful information. I don't agree with reason.org's opinions regarding what actions to take on anthropogenic global warming -
which seems to be to continue our use of fossil fuels and adapt to future warming. The financial cost of inaction would be great without spending trillions of dollars globally to reduce carbon emissions. I have no idea what the
death rate would be from inaction.There is a risk of much higher sea levels resulting from the destabilization of Greenland and West Antarctica.

"At a rough estimate more than 200 million people worldwide live along coastlines less than 5 metres above sea level. By the end of the 21st century this figure is estimated to increase to 400 to 500 million".

This issue of declining deaths is a "red herring".

https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/deaths_from_extreme_weather_1900_2010.pdf

The deadliest extreme weather events during much of the 20th century were droughts, followed by floods and storms. Over the 111-year record, droughts and floods were responsible for 58% and 34% of all fatalities worldwide due to all extreme weather events, while storms contributed an additional 7%. Thus, these three categories together accounted for 99% of the fatalities due to extreme weather events


Mortality from Droughts Annual drought fatalities between the two periods shown in Table 1 declined by a remarkable 99.8%, from 130,000 to 200. Annual death rates dropped an even more remarkable 99.9%. Both declines are explicable largely by the fact that available food supplies outstripped even the unprecedented population increases of the 20th century, which combined with a dramatic increase in societies’ ability to move food, medicines and other supplies from surplus areas to deficit areas, particularly in times of drought and other stresses. Food supplies increased for a number of reasons:  Greater use of existing technologies (i.e. irrigation, fertilization and pesticides) and the development of new technologies (i.e. the suite of technologies constituting the Green Revolution), which resulted in increased crop yields on the farm and reduced pre-and postharvest losses and wastage at every stage of the food chain.  Expanded commerce allowed food to move rapidly and in unprecedented quantities from surplus areas to deficit areas.  Greater wealth increased the purchasing power of consumers and governments in developing countries, allowing imports to compensate for shortfalls in production. It also allowed developed countries and charities to establish food aid programs to help out in both chronically food-short areas and during emergencies.16 Essential to each of these factors was increased availability of relatively cheap electricity and petroleum-based fuel and other products for transportation, fertilizer, food packaging, refrigeration and pesticides.


Mortality from Floods The 90% decline in annual flood fatalities between 1900–89 and 1990–2010 from 75,200 to 7,500 possibly reflects better control, prevention and management of floods through construction of dams and other infrastructure, supplemented by better emergency response measures facilitated by improvements in transportation systems, flood forecasting and management of water facilities, among other things.

 

Also, the claim is that the graph shows climate-related deaths in decline. But it shows no such thing. It is a graph of deaths per million people, and we know population rose exponentially during the period. So even if the absolute number of fatalities stayed stable or even rose, deaths per million could still fall.

I'd like to see the data.

 

That reflects an Australian export ban more than U.S. sales effort.
China is building a large number of coal-fired power plants in China, and building many more in other countries.
The decline in U.S. emissions derives from our switch to natural gas.

 

Yawn. His claims are obsolete. You'll note he's no longer part of the discussion.

 

Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-’80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific ‘Consensus’

By Kenneth Richard on 13. September 2016

Beginning in 2003, software engineer William Connolley quietly removed the highly inconvenient references to the global cooling scare of the 1970s from Wikipedia, the world’s most influential and accessed informational source. It had to be done. Too many skeptics were (correctly) pointing out that the scientific “consensus” during the 1960s and 1970s was that the […]

 

And again, no.

Highly Touted Alarmist Hurricane ‘Study’ Sets New Low for Misleading Deception
Hurricanes May 21, 20208
The media are breathlessly touting a cheap new “study” falsely asserting climate change is causing an increase in strong hurricanes. In reality, the study...

 

". . . “Now that the mountain pine beetle epidemic has ended, that money is no longer needed,” Williams testified. “Those remaining funds should go back into the general fund.”

Black Hills National Forest officials declared the end of the beetle epidemic in 2017, after the bugs had ravaged about one-third of the forest's total area and killed millions of trees since 1997. The beetles kill by boring beneath the bark of a pine tree and introducing a fungus and larvae that block the movement of water and nutrients.

According to Johnson, the federal government spent $75 million to fight mountain pine beetles in the Black Hills from 2011 to 2017, while the state spent $14 million, Lawrence County spent $3.25 million and Pennington County spent $1.8 million.

Although the epidemic is now over, that does not mean mountain pine beetles have left the Black Hills entirely. The bugs are native to the area, and the historical record is replete with infestations that have risen to epidemic levels on a cyclical basis. The end of the epidemic only means that the bugs’ numbers have dipped to a less concerning level. . . . "
The debate was the topic of Tuesday’s top front page in the Rapid City Journal.

 

Sooooooo you are attempting to use a 60 year old debate to prove that the current body of research is wrong?


New Low

 

OMG! Some bug in the USA is no longer a problem so that proves climate change is not real??

 

"Generally speaking, we can observe that the scientists in any particular institutional and political setting move as a flock, reserving their controversies and particular originalities for matters that do not call into question the fundamental system of biases they share." —Gunnar Myrdal, Objectivity in Social Research

 

Not at all. It's to demonstrate William Connolley's startling lack of integrity.

 

Specific refutation of a specific claim.

 

Ironically the covid restrictions may have pushed out the models, time will tell

 

To tackle the extract from the Delingpole/Lawrence Solomon hit piece first, as ever he reveals that he does not understand how Wiki works, Connolley himself responded here

* ''All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles.'' This is either technically true, or wrong, depending on how you interpret "re-wrote". If you use an edit counter you can discover that I have, to date, edited 5,474 unique articles, so it has gone up by a few since LS wrote (actually I wouldn't swear that total didn't include talk space, but never mind). But that raw number is nearly meaningless, because it includes articles such as Aesop, where I reverted vandalism, Berkhamstead Castle, where I added a picture, I removed the S word from the CRA , and... I'm sure you get the picture. I can't quite make it up to Z, but I did remember the XAP2. If you want to know how many articles where I've valiantly kept at bay the forces of wacko-dom, you need something more intelligent than an edit counter or a Delingpole.

"When Connolley didn't like the subject of a certain article, he removed it -- more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand". If you're an admin (as I was for a while, before I got de-sysopped, full story sometime) you get the power to delete articles. However, all such deletions show up and all other admins have the power to recreate deleted articles. So going around deleting articles I didn't like on climate grounds would not have worked - people would have said "hey, you have a [[WP:COI]] you can't do that. And indeed, although the edit counter will faithfully tell you "Pages deleted: 510", you need to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&user=William+M.+Connolley to see what I actually did. Most of the pages you see there are redlinks - which is to say, they are links to pages that don't exist, because (surprise) I deleted them. But any admin that disagreed could restore any of them. Most of the pages I deleted were just simple deletions - they were totally uncontroversial and obvious (I was never much of a one for frequenting [[WP:AFD]] where people have long and tedious arguments about whether individual pokemon cards are more notable than Polish politicians. One of my controversial deletes was [[Antisemitic incidents during the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict]] which I deleted with "edit warring disaster area. where are all the people who voted keep?" but sadly it got re-created (the comment, oh you wiki-virgins, is a reference to the discussion at AFD/DR; don't lets go there). I'm not at all sure I deleted *any* controversial GW-type pages, but if I did I'm sure the Dark Side will bitch at me and I'll update this."

I am always amused by the self-described 'NoTricksZone'. They must have a well-developed sense of irony. I invite you to examine number 159 in their list of papers on '1970s cooling'. Yep, it was published in 1940. No tricks there.

Connelley et al published a paper in the Bulletin of American Meteorological Society, examining the myth that there was a scientific consensus in the 1970s that predicted an imminent ice age or global cooling. They were explicit about what they did and how they did it; a search of the academic literature and citations from 1965 to 1979, looking for 'papers projecting climate change on, or even just discussing an aspect of climate forcing relevant to, time scales from decades to a century. ' They found 'only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming. Those seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the citations.'

So how did NTZ find more than 200 papers from the 1970s predicting cooling? Answer: they didn't. They didn't so much move the goalposts as dismantle them. Firstly they redefined the '1970s' as stretching from 1960 through to 1989. No tricks. While Connolley et al only counted peer-reviewed journal articles, NTZ throw in corporate articles, a book review and pop sci pieces. No tricks. They don't reveal their search terms (no tricks), but do tell us that they've expanded the Connolley et al criteria to include: discussions of the postwar cooling period, articles on uncertainties in the science, articles on cooler past climates with higher CO2 and non-CO2 warming influences.

There's also some dubious data handling; NTZ divide their papers into three groups but several papers appear in more than one list and get double-counted. Anything to get the numbers up. No tricks.

So whatever NTZ were 'disproving' it had little or nothing to do with the Connolley article in BAMS. Skeptical Science did a thorough analysis:

"NTZ's massive list of papers is meant to impress and overwhelm the casual "skeptic". Most people will never dig much deeper than a quick scroll through NTZ's never-ending stream of quotes from papers which he claims all support a 1970s "global cooling consensus". But, a close look at this treasure trove shows a less than careful treatment of the data. And NTZ's critique of PCF08 reveals shifting goal posts and straw-man arguments which distort our understanding of 1970s climate science."

The 1970s Global Cooling Zombie Myth and the Tricks Some People Use to Keep it Alive,

Part I
Part II.

 

I challenge readers to watch this Scientist deliver a talk on Global climate.
If you want a hint, this scientist makes a top notch case why CO2, rather than being a danger is excellent for our planet.

He picks up on of my long term thesis of study our Clouds if you want to get it.
Study our plants if you want to understand.

Everything not used as models, I mean actual evidence points to it makes no difference to climate as to CO2 but plenty of good for the health of this planet.

Greta Thunberg came up and her Grandfather proposed more CO2 was great for Sweden and by golly it has been great for Sweden. Professor Happer said she is shaming her own family.
But compare what you actually know to a scientist whose job for decades has been climate.