• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cold kills way more than hot

The effects are cumulative. It’s already too late. We might be able to slow it down, but politically that’s probably impossible. Polar ice is already melting and will continue to do so. It’s going to bring changes and disruption. We don’t have accurate models about exactly what will happen but it won’t really be good for anyone, because even if YOUR house/farm doesn’t get flooded, the guy you get your, eggs, vegetables, soy beans, gasoline, light bulbs, toilet paper, baby formula, natural gas, (pick one) from will be.

Look at the effects the pandemic had on supply chains, finance, everything.

So we may agree on some things just probably not for the same reasons. We need to be focused on being able to move large groups of people and infrastructure around, or acquiring the means and methods to do so.

I've earlier illustrated just how 'normal' our current conditions are based on actual observation of natural precedent , why would you still choose to believe the current shill media anti human shroud waving campaign instead ? :unsure:
 
Around 1900 two cities in the US were radically raised, Seattle up to 60 feet, and Galveston about 18 feet, with the technology of the day.
The sea level rise is about 1 foot per century, we can keep ahead of the rise in most places.
Also research with the same climate models shows the lag between emissions and maximum warming is about a decade, so there is almost no warming in the pipeline. We are not going to see the massive population shifts that some are concerned with, there will be changes but they will be gradual.

Our facility to adapt has never been greater than it is today. The very modest warming trend we are currently seeing is well within that facility :)
 
I've earlier illustrated just how 'normal' our current conditions are based on actual observation of natural precedent , why would you still choose to believe the current shill media anti human shroud waving campaign instead ? :unsure:
Oh that. Well, when I was a kid my parents gave me lots of books and I learned how to be a critical thinker. The thing about books is there’s at least one lie in every one of them, but if you read enough of them, your brain develops the ability to sift through large piles of dog shit and find truth.

So it’s not a matter of believing anyone per se.
 
The effects are cumulative. It’s already too late. We might be able to slow it down, but politically that’s probably impossible. Polar ice is already melting and will continue to do so.
Yes, it has been melting since we came out of the maunder minima. The net ice content has been trending down ever since we came out of the last ice age. We have accelerated the warming with soot. Temperature changes have had very little effect on the polar ice. Soot makes a dramatic change in how much heat the ice absorbs.
It’s going to bring changes and disruption. We don’t have accurate models about exactly what will happen but it won’t really be good for anyone, because even if YOUR house/farm doesn’t get flooded, the guy you get your, eggs, vegetables, soy beans, gasoline, light bulbs, toilet paper, baby formula, natural gas, (pick one) from will be.
Anybody in the near term who gets flooded have known their area are at cyclical risks already. Land use changes more than anything have changed the variability of flooding. We have restricted rivers that uses to flow hundreds is not thousands of feet outward from their regular width when their flow is heavy. Our man-made restriction back rivers up to flood states they wouldn't normally have. We have built in known flood plains. This is not climate change, but normal cyclical events.
Look at the effects the pandemic had on supply chains, finance, everything.
That has nothing to do with climate change, but government meddling for political reasons without thought of the damage they impose. These government imposed poorly thought our solutions will do more harm than good.
So we may agree on some things just probably not for the same reasons. We need to be focused on being able to move large groups of people and infrastructure around, or acquiring the means and methods to do so.
People will move naturally, over time. These changes will not affect a single generation, as this loss of land if not reversed, will take many generations. Sea levels will rise with or without our help, and we most certainly increase the rate of rise.

The infrastructure we lack, is the grid capacity, and lack of any efficient long distance power movement.
 
Oh that. Well, when I was a kid my parents gave me lots of books and I learned how to be a critical thinker. The thing about books is there’s at least one lie in every one of them, but if you read enough of them, your brain develops the ability to sift through large piles of dog shit and find truth.

So it’s not a matter of believing anyone per se.
Then why do you believe the lies about AGW?
 
Oh that. Well, when I was a kid my parents gave me lots of books and I learned how to be a critical thinker. The thing about books is there’s at least one lie in every one of them, but if you read enough of them, your brain develops the ability to sift through large piles of dog shit and find truth.

So it’s not a matter of believing anyone per se.

Facts work fine for me .... how do they work for you ? :unsure:
 
I only believe the true parts. Throwing the baby out with the bath water would be dumb.
The best thing we can do to combat ice melt is to stop putting aerosols in the air. That is our major contribution to melting ice.

CO2 is poorly qualifies for warming, and is probably insignificant. The research we have shows it is beneficial to plants. The benefits likely outweighs the slight warming.

Even a warmer planet from greenhouse gasses is beneficial. Such warming has almost no effect in areas where the absolute humidity is high. Don't confuse absolute and relative humidity. This will increase the habitable land in the higher latitudes.

Do you have any real concerns?
 
Oh that. Well, when I was a kid my parents gave me lots of books and I learned how to be a critical thinker. The thing about books is there’s at least one lie in every one of them, but if you read enough of them, your brain develops the ability to sift through large piles of dog shit and find truth.

So it’s not a matter of believing anyone per se.
So apply your critical thinking skills and look at how much feedback has happened for the existing warming input. Then decide if the catastrophic predictions are possible based on how the climate has already responded to warming perturbations!
 
So apply your critical thinking skills and look at how much feedback has happened for the existing warming input. Then decide if the catastrophic predictions are possible based on how the climate has already responded to warming perturbations!
Yeah it’s right on schedule.
 
Yeah it’s right on schedule.

Who's schedule would that be then ?

As I illustrated in post #168 the climate is historically doing just fine

You seem to be averse to such facts and a sucker for AGW propaganda .... why is that ? :unsure:
 
Last edited:

Study: Cold kills 20 times more people than heat​



The study — published in the British journal The Lancet — analyzed data on more than 74 million deaths in 13 countries between 1985 and 2012. Of those, 5.4 million deaths were related to cold, while 311,000 were related to heat.

Lancet went in the tank for lw advocacy a long time ago so it's definitely 'dog bites man' .
I mean that makes sense, humans can sweat to reduce body temp, but keeping core body temp up during very cold temp/weather is much harder.

Not sure where you're going with this.
 
I mean that makes sense, humans can sweat to reduce body temp, but keeping core body temp up during very cold temp/weather is much harder.

Not sure where you're going with this.

Well far more lives will be saved than lost in a warming world .... its not rocket science ;)
 
Yeah it’s right on schedule.
And you base that on your own critical thinking skills and not someone else's opinion,
based on 7 minuets of work?
You need to show how you arrived at that conclusion?
 
Back
Top Bottom