Total nonsense in climate debate

[markslawson + 1,042]

One example of the often very poor justification, if not downright nonsensical argument, used to justify investment in renewables we need look no further than the latest SONAR report produced by the reinsurance giant Swiss Re.

The PR material for this report says in part "It (the report) particularly flagged climate change and its impact on human health caused by heatwaves, floods, droughts and fires. This could subsequently lead to soaring mortality rates and healthcare costs with consequences to health, workers’ compensation and life insurance lines of business."

The report itself does not give many more details but mentions the usual suspects, such as a heatwave which killed a lot of elderly people in France last decade some time, and the ongoing problems with a disease here and a disease there. All the deaths are regrettable of course, but the trouble for this report is that the aggregate total of deaths from various causes cited are all going down not up, due to factors that have nothing to do with climate. Infectious diseases? In Australia records kept by government agencies show that in 1907 deaths from infectious disease of all kinds were 283 per 100,000. In 2014 (the latest figures available) the death rate from infectious diseases was 12 per hundred thousand. Those figures would be paralleled in all developed countries, and even in undeveloped ones, even during the AIDS crisis. For that matter, it is possible that even during the height of the Ebola crisis in  West Africa total death rates were not increasing. Admittedly it is difficult to say as the statistics are patchy but there are so many other diseases that can kill you in the area, including AIDS and malaria, and Western health organisations such as Médecins Sans Frontières have been working hard in West Africa.

As for deaths of elderly people the report does not mention deaths due to cold weather, which is a vastly more common problem in Europe, or that the increased use of air conditioning and basic precautions such as warning (often confused) elderly people to stay in the shade on hot days and drink water are known to have far more of an effect than any variation in seasons. And air conditioning, please note, will require a reliable power supply.

Deaths due to floods, fires and storms? Again these are known to be far more responsive to changes in building codes and government spending on public safety than any other factor, and have generally been trending down not up.

The Swiss RE report owes far more to activism than any hard-headed assessment of actual risks. 

Edited May 29, 2019 by markslawson
correcting a type

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

I have a chum of mine, very talented physician, who now works exclusively in the field of reducing preventable deaths due to medical error.  He tells me that there are some 400,000 medical-errors deaths in the USA each year, making it the third-leading cause of death. 

In all candor, deaths from fires, floods and storms does not even scratch this massive number.   Be careful the hospital you choose. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

He tells me that there are some 400,000 medical-errors deaths in the USA each year, making it the third-leading cause of death. 

My Lord! That is a large number.. Okay, choose hospitals carefully, gottit!

[Red + 252]

6 hours ago, markslawson said:

One example of the often very poor justification, if not downright nonsensical argument, used to justify investment in renewables we need look no further than the latest SONAR report produced by the reinsurance giant Swiss Re.

The Report had nothing at all to do with justifying renewables.

Your headline is "total nonsense."

[markslawson + 1,042]

3 hours ago, Red said:

The Report had nothing at all to do with justifying renewables.

Your headline is "total nonsense."

Sorry Red but the report has heaps to do with renewables as even a moment's thought will show. Admittedly renewables are not mentioned directly but activists are always waving reports like it to justify efforts to reduce emissions, which include renewables. I am using it as an example of the total nonsense which pervades the debate - nonsense which I'm sure you disapprove of as strongly as I do. Your sharpish retort also indicates that you don't have any response to the basic argument.

[Red + 252]

9 hours ago, markslawson said:

Sorry Red but the report has heaps to do with renewables as even a moment's thought will show. Admittedly renewables are not mentioned directly but activists are always waving reports like it to justify efforts to reduce emissions, which include renewables. I am using it as an example of the total nonsense which pervades the debate - nonsense which I'm sure you disapprove of as strongly as I do. Your sharpish retort also indicates that you don't have any response to the basic argument.

Right, the Report that never mentioned renewables magically justifies renewables.   It beggars belief that "activists are always waving reports like it" to justify renewables if they never mention renewables.  You seem prone to exaggeration

You claim that it is "total nonsense which pervades the debate," but make it without foundation.  You would need to show your point had merit in order to be credible.  

Your assertion that I "don't have any response to the basic argument" would require that you presented a case for your position.  However, you only made a series of baseless comments.

Keep up the good work 🚾.

[markslawson + 1,042]

2 hours ago, Red said:

Right, the Report that never mentioned renewables magically justifies renewables.   It beggars belief that "activists are always waving reports like it" to justify renewables if they never mention renewables.  You seem prone to exaggeration

Go back and read the earlier post. Not sure what you're hoping to prove by this sort of post but the point I made was clear enough in the original response and the start of the thread. Such reports are used to justify action against emissions as you well know. Leave it with you. 

[Red + 252]

3 hours ago, markslawson said:

Go back and read the earlier post. Not sure what you're hoping to prove by this sort of post but the point I made was clear enough in the original response and the start of the thread. Such reports are used to justify action against emissions as you well know. Leave it with you. 

It's a Report for the insurance industry.

Such reports have nothing to do with any debate or any justifications.

Your fake news and poor thinking skills are typical of those who remain clueless about climate science.

I leave that with you.

[specinho + 439]

On 5/24/2019 at 9:32 AM, markslawson said:

The PR material for this report says in part "It (the report) particularly flagged climate change and its impact on human health caused by heatwaves, floods, droughts and fires. This could subsequently lead to soaring mortality rates and healthcare costs with consequences to health, workers’ compensation and life insurance lines of business."

 

On 5/24/2019 at 4:12 PM, Red said:

The Report had nothing at all to do with justifying renewables.

Your headline is "total nonsense."

Climate debate is.........

They way we see it....... vs .......... the way others see it......... 

We might laugh at the kitty......... But........ On a second thought...... the kitty has done no wrong in thinking it could grow to become a tigress........ the cub and the kitten look very similar........ No one knows if it is a real cub or kitten except those who bestow it...........

hence......... there is no wrong in predicting the consequences of climate change could grow from having more mozzies buzzing around at the wrong time and wrong place to increase motality rates caused by mozzy transmitting diseases world wide..... Common cause and effect linkage......... On the other hand........ when somebody else sees it....... blaahhhh...... mozzies........ hope they get barbecued or turned erectile disfunction by the hotter weather or killed massively by insecticides etc. Problem solved..........

Therefore...... it would only be fruitful to put your points clearly when you disagree or agree with a why and how to support your discussion. Constructive criticism - by providing something useful/helpful during negative disagreements - so that better things can turn out at the end of consensus or discussion.......... or no??

Edited May 25, 2019 by specinho

[Red + 252]

3 hours ago, specinho said:

They way we see it....... vs .......... the way others see it......... 

The way it is, versus those who deny it is.

If it is about climate change, then there are literally thousands of science papers which provide evidence for what it is.  

But this is what the OP has claimed:  "Such reports are used to justify action against emissions as you well know."  What I "well know" is that his claim was total nonsense.  If a report makes no mention of "renewables," it is a clear fabrication to propose what the OP has.

The OP is not blessed with logic, nor thinking skills as after I clearly stated his comments were just "baseless claims," he said "Not sure what you're hoping to prove by this sort of post ..."  

Those who deny climate change are seldom able to present the science.  When challenged on climate issues they indulge in pettiness, obfuscation and fabrication.  This thread starter is another classic example.

 

[markslawson + 1,042]

6 hours ago, specinho said:

We might laugh at the kitty......... But........ On a second thought...... the kitty has done no wrong in thinking it could grow to become a tigress........ the cub and the kitten look very similar........ No one knows if it is a real cub or kitten except those who bestow it...........

Specinho.. all I can really say on your post is that you have your own logic. I also, strongly suggest, that you state your arguments more concisely. Leave it with you.

[specinho + 439]

19 hours ago, Red said:

The way it is, versus those who deny it is.

True...... 

16 hours ago, markslawson said:

Specinho.. all I can really say on your post is that you have your own logic. I also, strongly suggest, that you state your arguments more concisely. Leave it with you.

Certainly......... 

Two kids met at a hospital. The first kid was crying very loudly. 
2nd kid:"Why are you crying?"
1st kid:" I came to donate blood and they cut my finger."
2nd kid started to cry even louder after hearing that.
1st kid:" Why are you crying?"
2nd kid:" I came to donate urine............"

What I'm trying to say is........ some times our assumption is correct........ some times........ it isn't........... Our assumptions vs reality could create coincidental truth and/ or disparity. Support it with why and/or why not - that's all was suggested....... Regarding the cub that looks like a kitten or a kitten that looks like a cub - we can assume now on what it is. But the answer could only be known when the growth becomes reality and the little thing turns matured........ we could be right; could be wrong...... until then....... we could never be certain ......... or no?

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

On 5/26/2019 at 5:12 AM, Red said:

The way it is, versus those who deny it is.

If it is about climate change, then there are literally thousands of science papers which provide evidence for what it is.  

But this is what the OP has claimed:  "Such reports are used to justify action against emissions as you well know."  What I "well know" is that his claim was total nonsense.  If a report makes no mention of "renewables," it is a clear fabrication to propose what the OP has.

The OP is not blessed with logic, nor thinking skills as after I clearly stated his comments were just "baseless claims," he said "Not sure what you're hoping to prove by this sort of post ..."  

Those who deny climate change are seldom able to present the science.  When challenged on climate issues they indulge in pettiness, obfuscation and fabrication.  This thread starter is another classic example.

 

One of the problems with the climate change debate is that, as you say, "there are literally thousands of science papers which provide evidence" supporting the arguments presented by climate change advocates, there are just as many science papers from notable authorities which question the concept that climate change is caused by the actions of humans.

In my opinion, most of the 'laymen' involved in the debate and those participating in the recent demonstrations demanding action, have not read ANY of these papers nor could they understand the science if they had!

Many of those protesting, as shown on the incredibly biased mainstream media, are high school aged or younger. I find it difficult to believe that they have a strong enough background in physics, chemistry, mathematics and so forth to grasp the concepts put forth in the science papers presented from either camp.

The sad fact is, climate change has become a religion, not a scientific debate. If you do not agree with the climate change advocates you are a heretic and must be burned at the stake. I fear we are past the point where a rational debate can take place.

 

[Red + 252]

1 minute ago, Douglas Buckland said:

One of the problems with the climate change debate is that, as you say, "there are literally thousands of science papers which provide evidence" supporting the arguments presented by climate change advocates, there are just as many science papers from notable authorities which question the concept that climate change is caused by the actions of humans.

False.  Find one from 2018.

 

2 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

In my opinion, most of the 'laymen' involved in the debate and those participating in the recent demonstrations demanding action, have not read ANY of these papers nor could they understand the science if they had!

Maybe not, but most people do not have a degree in philosophy yet have no difficulty with basic logic.

3 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Many of those protesting, as shown on the incredibly biased mainstream media, are high school aged or younger. I find it difficult to believe that they have a strong enough background in physics, chemistry, mathematics and so forth to grasp the concepts put forth in the science papers presented from either camp.

It's like saying because they are not fire fighters they would be blind to their houses burning down.  

 

4 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

The sad fact is, climate change has become a religion, not a scientific debate.

Only to people who think like you.  The science is well and truly settled, but those who refuse to even try and understand it continue to say what you do.

If you are not up to a debate, then do not pretend there is a debate to be had.

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

I rest my case.....

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

2 hours ago, Red said:

Only to people who think like you.  The science is well and truly settled, but those who refuse to even try and understand it continue to say what you do.

If you are not up to a debate, then do not pretend there is a debate to be had.

Oddly enough, my comment earlier today in a totally unrelated thread seems to fit perfectly here as well:

Brain Implant to Make Learning Obsolete

Ah yes, because if Google says it's true, it must be true.  The science of learning is settled, then.

If this comment looks odd, it's because it was Google Translated from the original sarcasm font into plain text.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Red,

Give these a read:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#1e0fc2653f9f

https://www.beforetheflood.com/explore/the-deniers/fact-more-than-97-percent-of-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

Of course you will just ignore this as it doesn't fit your agenda, but perhaps other's on OilPrice will find it interesting.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

And now, let's apply the logic of the plastic toy to say, solar panels, wind turbine blades, manufacturing batteries, and so forth. Just a thought....

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/apr/04/carbon-footprint-calculated

[Red + 252]

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Red,

Give these a read:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#1e0fc2653f9f

https://www.beforetheflood.com/explore/the-deniers/fact-more-than-97-percent-of-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

Of course you will just ignore this as it doesn't fit your agenda, but perhaps other's on OilPrice will find it interesting.

Not even close - I deal with science.

So you have nothing!

[Red + 252]

2 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Oddly enough, my comment earlier today in a totally unrelated thread seems to fit perfectly here as well:

Brain Implant to Make Learning Obsolete

Ah yes, because if Google says it's true, it must be true.  The science of learning is settled, then.

If this comment looks odd, it's because it was Google Translated from the original sarcasm font into plain text.

I read science papers.  I get literally dozens of papers linked to read each week.

I use Google to help plan my travel itineraries.

The science of learning is a completely different thing to science.

I have never, ever, seen you say anything credible on climate science, but welcome it in future.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

28 minutes ago, Red said:

I read science papers.  I get literally dozens of papers linked to read each week.

I use Google to help plan my travel itineraries.

The science of learning is a completely different thing to science.

I have never, ever, seen you say anything credible on climate science, but welcome it in future.

Well then, how about my newly-coined patent-pending phrase "Climate Futures Fluctuate".

You're welcome.

 

(With apologies to @William Edwards for my outright misuse of his patent-pending phrase about oil prices: "Futures Fluctuate".)

[canadas canadas + 136]

Climate change belief or non-belief appears to be based on age demographics.  To many older people it is not a big concern but to many younger people it is a big concern.  Why?  Most likely to do with time and timing.  Since climate change is expected to become a big problem in the future, it will most likely impact those who are still alive at that time.  Most of the important current decision makers may not still be around by then.  Thus, they don't believe in climate change because it won't happen to them.

Edited May 27, 2019 by canadas canadas

[Marc Linquist + 63]

2 hours ago, canadas canadas said:

Climate change belief or non-belief appears to be based on age demographics.  To many older people it is not a big concern but to many younger people it is a big concern.  Why?  Most likely to do with time and timing.  Since climate change is expected to become a big problem in the future, it will most likely impact those who are still alive at that time.  Most of the important current decision makers may not still be around by then.  Thus, they don't believe in climate change because it won't happen to them.

Or it is just that older people are more likely to have seen over their vast lifetime of experiences that nothing is as sure as people (and the experts) say it is, that the experts are never wrong, that we actually have an accurate grasp of the intricacies involved, that the banks will never fail, that this particular ship is unsinkable, or that some war will be over in a few weeks, ect.....ect..... 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

9 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

(With apologies to @William Edwards for my outright misuse of his patent-pending phrase about oil prices: "Futures Fluctuate".)

The Force is strong in this one.....

[Bachelor of Science + 2]

On 5/23/2019 at 6:32 PM, markslawson said:

" In Australia records kept by government agencies show that in 1907 deaths from infectious disease of all kinds were 283 per 100,000. In 2014 (the latest figures available) the death rate from infectious diseases was 12 per thousand."

The Swiss RE report owes far more to activism than any hard-headed assessment of actual risks. 

If I were a Professor of Science, and not a lowly Bachelor of Science, I'd give you a Hard "D-minus" for this oversight. 

12 per thousand is 1,200 per 100,000.... blowing the whole premise of your cherry-picking mission to smear other scientists