- Joined
- Mar 31, 2013
- Messages
- 63,607
- Reaction score
- 28,972
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Well the 200,000 people per year dying as a result of using food for fuel is Mithrae's prefered figure and the 20 million is my lowest estimate of how many people live on less than $1.25 a day and doing some very simple maths. How many extra deaths do you think are happening due to the 40% to 70% increase in basic food prices as a result of all this global warming hype? [1]
Zero.
So you'll need to adjust your number. And you might want to qualify that your goofy estimate was blown out of the water by Mithrae at least once.
Ethanol isn't changing prices much- it's primarily corn in the US, and sugar cane in Brazil (I guess you're wailing about the starving South Americans who can't get enough sugar?), and starvation is due to food distribution, not prices or supply.
In the US, and probably in Europe, we actually pay farmers NOT to grow corn to prop up prices. Seems like you should be up in arms about that, instead!
Zero.
So you'll need to adjust your number. And you might want to qualify that your goofy estimate was blown out of the water by Mithrae at least once.
Ethanol isn't changing prices much- it's primarily corn in the US, and sugar cane in Brazil (I guess you're wailing about the starving South Americans who can't get enough sugar?), and starvation is due to food distribution, not prices or supply.
In the US, and probably in Europe, we actually pay farmers NOT to grow corn to prop up prices. Seems like you should be up in arms about that, instead!
Biofuels are conservatively estimated to have been responsible for at least 30 percent of the global food price spike in 2008 that pushed 100 million people into poverty and drove some 30 million more into hunger, according to the report, Meals per gallon, released by the UK charity ActionAid in February 2010 [1]. The number of chronically hungry people now exceeds one billion.
Biofuels and World Hunger
As I say there are various estimates but the lowest is 200k/year. That's dead people.
Yes. Proping up food prices in any way is deadful. It is always a crime against the poor or the world.
Making food more expensive anywhere in the freely trading world will make the poorest starve. Very basic stuff.
How many people shoule we starve to death in order to make sure we are doing something to ward off this problem that so far is not even showing signs of being as much as the lowest projections of AGW?
Currently the figure is between 200,000 people per year and 20 million. How many would you think is acceptable?
Well... 1.5 -1.2 = .3, and 4.5 -1.2= 3.3,I agree but I was referring to your 0.3 to 3.3 C comment.
Well... 1.5 -1.2 = .3, and 4.5 -1.2= 3.3,
Since it is described as an amplified feedback, the increase from the input signal (warming),
is between +.3 and +3.3 C.
Climate Models Provide No Rational Basis for Predicting Future Global Average Temperature
An interesting take on modeling.
For those who don't know: Science goes back to the drawing board when a model fails to predict the future situation accurately.
That BS again.
What happens if we never started clearing the skies since the 70's?
Any scientist would agree this was due, and predictable, because of our actions concerning aerosols. That is if they studied the facts known then.
What a stupid example.
Global sulfate aerosol are currently at about the same level as they were in the mid 1960s.
Link?
Starve to death ?
If the unscientific climate deniers are wrong, that's more than 7 billion dead.
People starve to death whether we ignore climate change or not. If you're worried about world hunger, then you're fighting the wrong battle to fight against carbon dioxide caution; lol !!
Totally incorrect. Science doesn't go "back to the drawing board" unless a better model comes along. We're still waiting for yours. Ooops, don't have one? Looks like the consensus wins again.
When a non-climatologist starts by willfully misrepresenting the IPCC's message as "if you don't repent you're all going to die", it's not worth my time to continue. Clearly he hasn't even read the IPCC report, so he does not have the standing to criticize it.
Global sulfate aerosol are currently at about the same level as they were in the mid 1960s. So why are temperatures so much warmer now than they were then?
So, borrowing your own preferring mode of insult: What a stupid hypothesis.
When a non-climatologist starts by willfully misrepresenting the IPCC's message as "if you don't repent you're all going to die", it's not worth my time to continue. Clearly he hasn't even read the IPCC report, so he does not have the standing to criticize it.
Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
Starve to death ?
If the unscientific climate deniers are wrong, that's more than 7 billion dead.
People starve to death whether we ignore climate change or not. If you're worried about world hunger, then you're fighting the wrong battle to fight against carbon dioxide caution; lol !!
The 1.2 C is the likely physics based warming that will occur if the level of CO2 is doubled.That's not correct. The 1.2 is the base number that can be calculated for the temperature rise for CO2 alone. There are additional positive feedback's that increase that base number. You don't subtract the 1.2 from the 1.5. There are an additional .3 to 3.3 degrees due to positive feedback. Only if the total feedback was negative would you start subtracting from the base number.
Most people who do Scientific research for a living and publish often, understand proper error analysis.When a non-climatologist starts by willfully misrepresenting the IPCC's message as "if you don't repent you're all going to die", it's not worth my time to continue. Clearly he hasn't even read the IPCC report, so he does not have the standing to criticize it.
When the IPCC misrepresents the science, why should we give them respect?
You have no idea what you are talking about, clearly.
The worste case scenarios from the IPCC and any real science show at most a 3.8c warming from now, or there abouts, by 2100. There is no science that supports the idea that all of humanity is at risk of death due to this at any time in the future.
Millions are starving now. Billions are pushed down into poverty dus to the manipulation of the food prices by the use of food as fuel. How much evil do you think is acceptable to avoid a fantasy problem in this real world?
Again, world hunger is a red herring. If you want to solve world hunger, be my guest.
I find it amusing that you think a 3.8 degree C warming would not impact agriculture. Ignorance is hardly a valid excuse.
+3.8 c would impact food production. It would increase it dramatically.
+3.8c is about the same as moving 300 - 450 miles south. How would that effect the crops that are grown bearing in mind that the desert zones are likely to shrink because a warmer world is a far wetter world.
Also, of course, increased CO2 increases crop productivity.
World hunger, outside war zones, would be instantly solved by the removal of all agricultural subsidies and market manipulations by governments. Biodeisel is a crime against humanity.
First off, Even if we could succeed in doubling the CO2 level, which is unlikely,So you want to warm the planet on purpose ?
But you also think we don't understand how it's warming ?
And you don't see any flaw in your reckless "plan" ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?