Climate Problem? Data say no.

[Sunsettommy]

Science Matters

Climate Problem? Data say no.

by Ron Clutz

June 20, 2020

Excerpt:

An recent article is The Crucial Question That Requires Asking: Is There a Climate Problem? As David Simon explains, so many take the “climate problem” as a given without looking at the evidence. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and images.

In “Coronavirus and the Climate,” Wall Street Journal columnist Walter Russell Mead swallows the big lie about global warming.

Mead’s column posted on June 15 begins by sharing a projection that draconian coronavirus lockdown measures will reduce 2020 global CO2 emissions by about the amount that the United Nations Environment Program has determined is supposedly needed annually “if the world is to have any chance of keeping the average temperature from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.”

Mead then laments that most of these measures “aren’t economically sustainable.” Teleworking adopted during the lockdown may become the norm for many rather than the exception, but “[a] campaign to ‘cut the commute’ globally won’t solve the climate problem.”

But Mead never considers the key question: is there is a “climate problem”? He simply accepts as undeniable scientific truth that keeping the earth’s temperature from rising more than 1.5 degrees is necessary to prevent catastrophic harm.

The scientific evidence does not support this proposition. There are speculative, pseudo-scientific projections and models that purport to show that global warming will lead to climate doom. But actual scientific data instead show that global warming has not been harmful and presents no danger to future generations.

First, rather than imperiling human life, the data show that global warming saves lives.
A 2015 study by 22 scientists from around the world found that cold kills over 17 times more people than heat.

The scientists examined over 74 million deaths in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States in 1985-2012. The data they compiled show that cold caused 7.29 percent of these deaths, while heat caused only 0.42 percent. The data also show that “moderately hot and cold temperatures” caused 88.85 percent of the temperature-related deaths, while “extreme” temperatures caused only 11.15 percent. See Climate Medicine

LINK

=======

Data set after data set after data set, shows there is no dangerous climate changes for the bad into the future.

 

[Sunsettommy]

This article is going to be a hall of fame expose of the absurd warming is deadly to us propaganda.

I particularly like the part about Climate related deaths decline since 1920:

"Second, the number of natural disaster deaths declined by over 80 percent as the earth’s temperature has been rising.
NASA data show that since 1920, the earth’s temperature has risen by 1.25 degrees Celsius. Since 1920, world population also has quadrupled from less than two billion to over seven and half billion. Yet during this period, EM-DAT (The International Disaster Database) data show that the number of people killed by natural disasters has declined from almost 55,000 per year to less than 10,000 per year. See Data vs. Models #3: Disasters"

How can warmist/alarmists ignore this hard evidence that an estimated warming of 1.25C in 100 years is harmless to us?

Fake news claims statements is a dead argument, since they don't address the posted article at all.

 

[edthecynic]

This article is going to be a hall of fame expose of the absurd warming is deadly to us propaganda.

I particularly like the part about Climate related deaths decline since 1920:

"Second, the number of natural disaster deaths declined by over 80 percent as the earth’s temperature has been rising.
NASA data show that since 1920, the earth’s temperature has risen by 1.25 degrees Celsius. Since 1920, world population also has quadrupled from less than two billion to over seven and half billion. Yet during this period, EM-DAT (The International Disaster Database) data show that the number of people killed by natural disasters has declined from almost 55,000 per year to less than 10,000 per year. SeeData vs. Models #3: Disasters"

How can warmist/alarmists ignore this hard evidence that an estimated warming of 1.25C in 100 years is harmless to us?

Fake news claims statements is a dead argument, since they don't address the posted article at all.

What a totally moronic stat!!!
Natural disaster deaths has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with improvements in medicine and technology!!!
The number of natural disasters IS related to climate change and are INCREASING dramatically since 1920.
YOU ARE FAKE NEWS!

Disaster trend, showing the increase in occurrences of natural disasters, (2016).

 

[Sunsettommy]

What a totally moronic stat!!!
Natural disaster deaths has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with improvements in medicine and technology!!!
The number of natural disasters IS related to climate change and are INCREASING dramatically since 1920.
YOU ARE FAKE NEWS!

Disaster trend, showing the increase in occurrences of natural disasters, (2016).

No link, and you didn't show that this chart below is false at all, don't you know what a counterpoint is?

===

"NASA data show that since 1920, the earth’s temperature has risen by 1.25 degrees Celsius. Since 1920, world population also has quadrupled from less than two billion to over seven and half billion. Yet during this period, EM-DAT (The International Disaster Database) data show that the number of people killed by natural disasters has declined from almost 55,000 per year to less than 10,000 per year. See Data vs. Models #3: Disasters

You are now 0-5.

Cheers.

 

[edthecynic]

No link, and you didn't show that this chart below is false at all, don't you know what a counterpoint is?

===

"NASA data show that since 1920, the earth’s temperature has risen by 1.25 degrees Celsius. Since 1920, world population also has quadrupled from less than two billion to over seven and half billion. Yet during this period, EM-DAT (The International Disaster Database) data show that the number of people killed by natural disasters has declined from almost 55,000 per year to less than 10,000 per year. See Data vs. Models #3: Disasters

View attachment 353272

You are now 0-5.

Cheers.

Repeating your BULLSHIT does not make it any less BULLSHIT. Deaths have nothing to do solely with natural disasters and climate, there are other factors involved in total deaths. But natural disasters ARE related to climate change and they have increased dramatically since 1920 as my real chart showed.
YOU ARE FAKE NEWS!

Disaster trend, showing the increase in occurrences of natural disasters (from Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, (2016)).

 

[Sunsettommy]

Repeating your BULLSHIT does not make it any less BULLSHIT. Deaths have nothing to do solely with natural disasters and climate, there are other factors involved in total deaths. But natural disasters ARE related to climate change and they have increased dramatically since 1920 as my real chart showed.
YOU ARE FAKE NEWS!

Disaster trend, showing the increase in occurrences of natural disasters (from Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, (2016)).

With no link to your chart, I can't take your chart seriously, since there are numerous factors not being addressed by you and your unsourced chart. Here are a few obvious one:

Great increase in population growth and buildings in storm and flood zones since 1920, but that reality would zoom over your head.

I posted the source to my chart and there are additions sources behind it, yet YOU can't seem to mount a counterpoint to it and I know why, there is nothing you can refute which is why you just shout fake news instead.

Now here is why I can prove that you are a miserable thinker, YOUR chart only covers NUMBER OF EVENTS, no deaths mentioned at all.

My chart is about NUMBER of DEATHS, no mention of events at all.

I dug up your report, it doesn't even support your argument at all, because the number of deaths from YOUR reports actually agree with my chart quite well.

I never found your chart in the report, but found THIS CHART (page 78) showing total number of deaths for 2016, go see it, it doesn't contradict my chart number of deaths for the time frame.

Go to page 18, where it shows the number of deaths for 1990-2016:

"Figure 1: Numbers of disasters and people deaths (x1,000): 1990-2016"

Again it matched quite well with my chart.

" Yet during this period, EM-DAT (The International Disaster Database) data show that the number of people killed by natural disasters has declined from almost 55,000 per year to less than 10,000 per year. "

The chart ends in year 2016, same year as yours.

My chart says less than 10,000 deaths for 2016, your chart on page 78 says about 8,000 deaths for 2016 ( Map 2 - Total deaths per sub-continent in 2016)

You have been smashed!

Take your stupidity with you....

 

[watchingfromafar]

But natural disasters ARE related to climate change and they have increased dramatically since 1920 as my real chart showed.

Many believe we are changing the earth’s climate;.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,. “we” are not.

If you watched the earth below from the space station during the night, what percentage of the surface is light up-?

I believe it is around 0.0011%
If someone believes a few wittle, tiny, incy-pency 0.1111% of light at night can change our world’s climates from melting ice caps, to raging fires in California and rising seas you are wrong.
Earth’s climate system has been changing since day one & will continue to change until our planet is no more.
I don’t even think natural disasters can “change” the world’s climate patterns.

Besides, in 30-40 years all the known oil reserves will be pumped and burned.

Most of the countries around the world know this therefor they are developing electric cars, electric trucks and electric busses and many other ingenious projects. Check out the “renewable energy” TV series'.

Green Energy Futures
renewable energy tv programs in canada - Google Search
Clean Energy Engineering | UBC Master of Engineering Leadership
World Energy TV | The Home of Energy Thought-Leadership | World Energy TV

The only country in the world that is not 100% behind a peaceful, coordinated transition to renewable energy is the United States of America.

And the reason we cannot see the light is because our leader refuses to believe it.

Trump is an idiot and he is quickly leading us off of the cliff

At 70 I will not live to see this tragedy unfold but my children will.
-

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But natural disasters ARE related to climate change and they have increased dramatically since 1920 as my real chart showed.

Many believe we are changing the earth’s climate;.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,. “we” are not.

If you watched the earth below from the space station during the night, what percentage of the surface is light up-?

I believe it is around 0.0011%
If someone believes a few wittle, tiny, incy-pency 0.1111% of light at night can change our world’s climates from melting ice caps, to raging fires in California and rising seas you are wrong.
Earth’s climate system has been changing since day one & will continue to change until our planet is no more.
I don’t even think natural disasters can “change” the world’s climate patterns.

Besides, in 30-40 years all the known oil reserves will be pumped and burned.

Most of the countries around the world know this therefor they are developing electric cars, electric trucks and electric busses and many other ingenious projects. Check out the “renewable energy” TV series'.

Green Energy Futures
renewable energy tv programs in canada - Google Search
Clean Energy Engineering | UBC Master of Engineering Leadership
World Energy TV | The Home of Energy Thought-Leadership | World Energy TV

The only country in the world that is not 100% behind a peaceful, coordinated transition to renewable energy is the United States of America.

And the reason we cannot see the light is because our leader refuses to believe it.

Trump is an idiot and he is quickly leading us off of the cliff

At 70 I will not live to see this tragedy unfold but my children will.
-

Most of the countries around the world know this therefor they are developing electric cars, electric trucks and electric busses and many other ingenious projects.

You gonna come home after work and plug your electric car into your solar panels?

 

[edthecynic]

Great increase in population growth and buildings in storm and flood zones since 1920, but that reality would zoom over your head.

Population growth has nothing to do with climate, pinhead!!!!!
Building codes are much stricter since 1920 also, the fact remains that natural disasters have INCREASED dramatically since 1920 and the source of the chart is listed under the chart, are you blind as well as deaf and dumb???

 

[edthecynic]

Now here is why I can prove that you are a miserable thinker, YOUR chart only covers NUMBER OF EVENTS, no deaths mentioned at all.

My chart is about NUMBER of DEATHS, no mention of events at all.

And deaths are NOT directly related to climate. As I showed you there are many other factors that effect deaths from natural disasters, more and better rescue equipment since 1920 and much better trauma medicine since 1920 and stricter building codes since 1920 for a few, but you are too miserable a thinker to understand that. But the number of natural disasters IS directly related to climate, which is why you dishonestly want to ignore it.

Events rule, and you are a fool!

 

[Sunsettommy]

Now here is why I can prove that you are a miserable thinker, YOUR chart only covers NUMBER OF EVENTS, no deaths mentioned at all.

My chart is about NUMBER of DEATHS, no mention of events at all.

And deaths are NOT directly related to climate. As I showed you there are many other factors that effect deaths from natural disasters, more and better rescue equipment since 1920 and much better trauma medicine since 1920 and stricter building codes since 1920 for a few, but you are too miserable a thinker to understand that. But the number of natural disasters IS directly related to climate, which is why you dishonestly want to ignore it.

Events rule, and you are a fool!

People are reading your continuous deflection from MY chart, which is about the number of climate related deaths, that have dropped rapidly over the decades, as I posted this about it:

" "NASA data show that since 1920, the earth’s temperature has risen by 1.25 degrees Celsius. Since 1920, world population also has quadrupled from less than two billion to over seven and half billion. Yet during this period, EM-DAT (The International Disaster Database) data show that the number of people killed by natural disasters has declined from almost 55,000 per year to less than 10,000 per year. SeeData vs. Models #3: Disasters"

Your very first response to this quote above, that was about climate related deaths, and it rapid drop over the decades, backed by sources:

"What a totally moronic stat!!!
Natural disaster deaths has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with improvements in medicine and technology!!!
The number of natural disasters IS related to climate change and are INCREASING dramatically since 1920.
YOU ARE FAKE NEWS!"

===

Your shift from climate related deaths, to something else without any evidence presented....., which means you made no viable counterpoint at all, then when I repeated that quote added the climate related deaths CHART to my next POST 6, your reply was more of the same:

"Repeating your BULLSHIT does not make it any less BULLSHIT. Deaths have nothing to do solely with natural disasters and climate, there are other factors involved in total deaths. But natural disasters ARE related to climate change and they have increased dramatically since 1920 as my real chart showed.
YOU ARE FAKE NEWS!"



Still no counterpoint at all, STILL no link to your chart and to the paper, this means you still posted nothing but anger and hot air. You have a serious inability to carry on a real discussion, just scream and run, ignore the sourced evidence I actually posted, ignore my repeated mention of YOUR failure to post a source for your chart and paper.

===

Then I searched for this paper (The one you avoid posting a link to), which I duly found and posted, you ignored it to scream yet again.

Disaster trend, showing the increase in occurrences of natural disasters (from Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, (2016).

LINK

Here is what you IGNORED in POST 9,

"I dug up your report, it doesn't even support your argument at all, because the number of deaths from YOUR reports actually agree with my chart quite well. (Of which you completely ignored in your next two replies. )

I never found your chart in the report, but found THIS CHART (page 78) showing total number of deaths for 2016, go see it, it doesn't contradict my chart number of deaths for the time frame.

Go to page 18, where it shows the number of deaths for 1990-2016:

"Figure 1: Numbers of disasters and people deaths (x1,000): 1990-2016"

Again it matched quite well with my chart.

" Yet during this period, EM-DAT (The International Disaster Database) data show that the number of people killed by natural disasters has declined from almost 55,000 per year to less than 10,000 per year. "

The chart ends in year 2016, same year as yours.

My chart says less than 10,000 deaths for 2016, your chart on page 78 says about 8,000 deaths for 2016 ( Map 2 - Total deaths per sub-continent in 2016)"

=====

It is clear you can't handle it, when I present evidence that even YOUR paper (the one you refused to post the link for) supports my charts on the number of deaths. I haven't once disputed the paper (the one you refused to post link for), my argument all along has been the reduction of climate related deaths over the decades, an argument YOU keep avoiding over and over, with deflective screaming.

Your own paper (which you never post a link to) actually supports my climate related deaths counts quite well, showed link to their charts in the paper (you never post a link to) that is what you ignore over and over, you have nothing to show for all of your screams.

Your own paper doesn't support you at all, when it is about climate related deaths.

 

[edthecynic]

Now here is why I can prove that you are a miserable thinker, YOUR chart only covers NUMBER OF EVENTS, no deaths mentioned at all.

My chart is about NUMBER of DEATHS, no mention of events at all.

And deaths are NOT directly related to climate. As I showed you there are many other factors that effect deaths from natural disasters, more and better rescue equipment since 1920 and much better trauma medicine since 1920 and stricter building codes since 1920 for a few, but you are too miserable a thinker to understand that. But the number of natural disasters IS directly related to climate, which is why you dishonestly want to ignore it.

Events rule, and you are a fool!

People are reading your continuous deflection from MY chart, which is about the number of climate related deaths, that have dropped rapidly over the decades, as I posted this about it:

" "NASA data show that since 1920, the earth’s temperature has risen by 1.25 degrees Celsius. Since 1920, world population also has quadrupled from less than two billion to over seven and half billion. Yet during this period, EM-DAT (The International Disaster Database) data show that the number of people killed by natural disasters has declined from almost 55,000 per year to less than 10,000 per year. SeeData vs. Models #3: Disasters"

Your very first response to this quote above, that was about climate related deaths, and it rapid drop over the decades, backed by sources:

"What a totally moronic stat!!!
Natural disaster deaths has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with improvements in medicine and technology!!!
The number of natural disasters IS related to climate change and are INCREASING dramatically since 1920.
YOU ARE FAKE NEWS!"

===

Your shift from climate related deaths, to something else without any evidence presented....., which means you made no viable counterpoint at all, then when I repeated that quote added the climate related deaths CHART to my next POST 6, your reply was more of the same:

"Repeating your BULLSHIT does not make it any less BULLSHIT. Deaths have nothing to do solely with natural disasters and climate, there are other factors involved in total deaths. But natural disasters ARE related to climate change and they have increased dramatically since 1920 as my real chart showed.
YOU ARE FAKE NEWS!"



Still no counterpoint at all, STILL no link to your chart and to the paper, this means you still posted nothing but anger and hot air. You have a serious inability to carry on a real discussion, just scream and run, ignore the sourced evidence I actually posted, ignore my repeated mention of YOUR failure to post a source for your chart and paper.

===

Then I searched for this paper, which I duly found and posted, you ignored it to scream yet again.

Here is what you IGNORED in POST 9,

"I dug up your report, it doesn't even support your argument at all, because the number of deaths from YOUR reports actually agree with my chart quite well. (Of which you completely ignored in your next two replies. )

I never found your chart in the report, but found THIS CHART (page 78) showing total number of deaths for 2016, go see it, it doesn't contradict my chart number of deaths for the time frame.

Go to page 18, where it shows the number of deaths for 1990-2016:

"Figure 1: Numbers of disasters and people deaths (x1,000): 1990-2016"

Again it matched quite well with my chart.

" Yet during this period, EM-DAT (The International Disaster Database) data show that the number of people killed by natural disasters has declined from almost 55,000 per year to less than 10,000 per year. "

The chart ends in year 2016, same year as yours.

My chart says less than 10,000 deaths for 2016, your chart on page 78 says about 8,000 deaths for 2016 ( Map 2 - Total deaths per sub-continent in 2016)"

=====

It is clear you can't handle it, when I present evidence that even YOUR paper (the one you refused to post the link for) supports my charts on the number of deaths. I haven't once disputed the paper (the one you refused to post link for), my argument all along has been the reduction of climate related deaths over the decades, an argument YOU keep avoiding over and over, with deflective screaming.

YOU ARE FAKE NEWS!
YourBULLSHIT has been thoroughly debunked.

 

[Auld Phart]

Now here is why I can prove that you are a miserable thinker, YOUR chart only covers NUMBER OF EVENTS, no deaths mentioned at all.

My chart is about NUMBER of DEATHS, no mention of events at all.

And deaths are NOT directly related to climate. As I showed you there are many other factors that effect deaths from natural disasters, more and better rescue equipment since 1920 and much better trauma medicine since 1920 and stricter building codes since 1920 for a few, but you are too miserable a thinker to understand that. But the number of natural disasters IS directly related to climate, which is why you dishonestly want to ignore it.

Events rule, and you are a fool!

People are reading your continuous deflection from MY chart, which is about the number of climate related deaths, that have dropped rapidly over the decades, as I posted this about it:

" "NASA data show that since 1920, the earth’s temperature has risen by 1.25 degrees Celsius. Since 1920, world population also has quadrupled from less than two billion to over seven and half billion. Yet during this period, EM-DAT (The International Disaster Database) data show that the number of people killed by natural disasters has declined from almost 55,000 per year to less than 10,000 per year. SeeData vs. Models #3: Disasters"

Your very first response to this quote above, that was about climate related deaths, and it rapid drop over the decades, backed by sources:

"What a totally moronic stat!!!
Natural disaster deaths has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with improvements in medicine and technology!!!
The number of natural disasters IS related to climate change and are INCREASING dramatically since 1920.
YOU ARE FAKE NEWS!"

===

Your shift from climate related deaths, to something else without any evidence presented....., which means you made no viable counterpoint at all, then when I repeated that quote added the climate related deaths CHART to my next POST 6, your reply was more of the same:

"Repeating your BULLSHIT does not make it any less BULLSHIT. Deaths have nothing to do solely with natural disasters and climate, there are other factors involved in total deaths. But natural disasters ARE related to climate change and they have increased dramatically since 1920 as my real chart showed.
YOU ARE FAKE NEWS!"



Still no counterpoint at all, STILL no link to your chart and to the paper, this means you still posted nothing but anger and hot air. You have a serious inability to carry on a real discussion, just scream and run, ignore the sourced evidence I actually posted, ignore my repeated mention of YOUR failure to post a source for your chart and paper.

===

Then I searched for this paper, which I duly found and posted, you ignored it to scream yet again.

Here is what you IGNORED in POST 9,

"I dug up your report, it doesn't even support your argument at all, because the number of deaths from YOUR reports actually agree with my chart quite well. (Of which you completely ignored in your next two replies. )

I never found your chart in the report, but found THIS CHART (page 78) showing total number of deaths for 2016, go see it, it doesn't contradict my chart number of deaths for the time frame.

Go to page 18, where it shows the number of deaths for 1990-2016:

"Figure 1: Numbers of disasters and people deaths (x1,000): 1990-2016"

Again it matched quite well with my chart.

" Yet during this period, EM-DAT (The International Disaster Database) data show that the number of people killed by natural disasters has declined from almost 55,000 per year to less than 10,000 per year. "

The chart ends in year 2016, same year as yours.

My chart says less than 10,000 deaths for 2016, your chart on page 78 says about 8,000 deaths for 2016 ( Map 2 - Total deaths per sub-continent in 2016)"

=====

It is clear you can't handle it, when I present evidence that even YOUR paper (the one you refused to post the link for) supports my charts on the number of deaths. I haven't once disputed the paper (the one you refused to post link for), my argument all along has been the reduction of climate related deaths over the decades, an argument YOU keep avoiding over and over, with deflective screaming.

YOU ARE FAKE NEWS!
YourBULLSHIT has been thoroughly debunked.

You have provided no links to back up your claims.

 

[watchingfromafar]

USMB set me this notice-----

[Your post in the thread Climate Problem? Data say no. was deleted. Reason: trolling/no content

Today at 11:32 AM]; right now 06/23/2020 @ 4:39 PM LST +/-

A few people read it before the lights were turned off.

My copy of the deleted post follows—

Many believe we are we are changing the earth’s climate; “we” are not.
If you watched the earth below from the space station during the night, what percentage of the surface is light up-?
I believe it is around 0.0011%
If someone believes a few wittle, tiny, incy-pency 0.1111% of our lights on at night can change our world’s climates from melting ice caps, to raging fires in California and rising seas you are wrong.
Earth’s climate system has been changing since day one & will continue to change until our planet is no more.
I don’t even think natural disasters can “change” the world’s climate patterns.
Besides, in 30-40 years all the known oil reserves will be pumped and burned.
Most of the countries around the world know this therefor they are developing electric cars, electric trucks and electric busses. Check out the “renewable energy” TV series.
Green Energy Futures
https://tinyurl.com/y9v3bjf8
https://tinyurl.com/yd94gymv
World Energy TV | The Home of Energy Thought-Leadership | World Energy TV

The only country in the world that is not 100% behind a peaceful, coordinated transition to renewable energy s the United States of America.

And the reason we cannot see the light is because our leader refuses to believe it.

Fellow posters; I ask: was the above a delet-able offence--?

As one, I say no

This post was not intended to be hostile, no animosity intended o r implied
Please define "trolling" in your own words and once defined please point out where in my post conforms to your term trolling.
Thanks In Advance
-

-

 

[mamooth]

The scientists examined over 74 million deaths in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States in 1985-2012.

So, it was a study that avoided most of densely populated tropics, where the heat deaths happen. Amazingly, in the cold countries, more of the deaths were from cold!

GIGO

But then, they're just brown people dying, so deniers don't care.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The scientists examined over 74 million deaths in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States in 1985-2012.

So, it was a study that avoided most of densely populated tropics, where the heat deaths happen. Amazingly, in the cold countries, more of the deaths were from cold!

GIGO

But then, they're just brown people dying, so deniers don't care.

Here is the rest of the quote you left out, you dishonest boy!

"The scientists examined over 74 million deaths in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States in 1985-2012. The data they compiled show that cold caused 7.29 percent of these deaths, while heat caused only 0.42 percent. The data also show that “moderately hot and cold temperatures” caused 88.85 percent of the temperature-related deaths, while “extreme” temperatures caused only 11.15 percent. See Climate Medicine "

red bolding mine
===

Of the 74 Million deaths in 13 countries,, and I quote: " The data they compiled show that cold caused 7.29 percent of these deaths, while heat caused only 0.42 percent."

That is the point they were making, that cold kills far more people than warm does.

Where I live it is normally over 100 degrees about 14 days a year, already had two this year, yet no one dies like flies from the heat. Have you been in Palm Springs California, Death Valley California, or Phoenix Arizona, or in Las Vegas Nevada, where it hotter in those places than virtually anywhere in the tropics?

If you think 100 degree days is more dangerous than 32 degree days, then you are an idiot.

As usual you have nothing honest to say, you tried a stupid gotcha, it backfires badly for you.

 

[mamooth]

Here is the rest of the quote you left out, you dishonest boy!

None of that refutes the fact that the study left out most of the tropics. It's easy to claim most deaths are from cold if you just leave out the warmest areas. And pretty dumb. Which is why the study didn't make the loopy claims you do. Only deniers twisted the data, again.

If you think 100 degree days is more dangerous than 32 degree days, then you are an idiot.

Such warm days will kill a lot more people, if they come along in the midwest where the humidity is high.

You also fail massively with logic. It's not about numbers. It's about the change in the numbers. The question is whether rising temps cause more net deaths. Will new deaths due to more heat outnumber lessened deaths due to less cold? Evidence and common sense says yes.

As usual you have nothing honest to say, you tried a stupid gotcha, it backfires badly for you.

As usual, you ran from what I actually wrote, because you I'd debunked your nonsense again. You always run. It's kind of what defines you.

 

[watchingfromafar]

The top 10 causes of death
May 24, 2018
Of the 56.9 million deaths worldwide in 2016, more than half (54%) were due to the top 10 causes. Ischaemic heart disease and stroke are the world’s biggest killers, accounting for a combined 15.2 million deaths in 2016. These diseases have remained the leading causes of death globally in the last 15 years.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease claimed 3.0 million lives in 2016, while lung cancer (along with trachea and bronchus cancers) caused 1.7 million deaths. Diabetes killed 1.6 million people in 2016, up from less than 1 million in 2000. Deaths due to dementias more than doubled between 2000 and 2016, making it the 5th leading cause of global deaths in 2016 compared to 14th in 2000.

Lower respiratory infections remained the most deadly communicable disease, causing 3.0 million deaths worldwide in 2016. The death rate from diarrhoeal diseases decreased by almost 1 million between 2000 and 2016, but still caused 1.4 million deaths in 2016. Similarly, the number of tuberculosis deaths decreased during the same period, but is still among the top 10 causes with a death toll of 1.3 million. HIV/AIDS is no longer among the world’s top 10 causes of death, having killed 1.0 million people in 2016 compared with 1.5 million in 2000.

Road injuries killed 1.4 million people in 2016, about three-quarters (74%) of whom were men and boys.
The top 10 causes of death
-

I do not believe the temperature of the air around you is a major cause of deaths
NOTE+++++ I do not want my post to be a topic killer; Please carry on,

 

[watchingfromafar]

You gonna come home after work and plug your electric car into your solar panels?

No, but I might use the same plug I plug my dryer into.
Or I use a hydrogen fuel cell to light up my home and power my car to work~~~~

Hydrogen Fueled Trains Coming to Europe
The fuel cell systems, based on the Company’s Heavy-Duty HD series fuel cells, will be developed to meet European train compliance regulations. The first units are expected to be delivered in 2016 following prototype work slated for late 2015.
Hydrogen Superior to Batteries

What are the pros and cons? Read on for the answers to all the key questions.
Fewer pollutants, less noise – these are among the many great hopes for electrically powered vehicles.
The technology in question is the hydrogen engine, also known as the fuel cell electric vehicle, or FCEV. Before we discuss the pros and cons of hydrogen fuel cell cars, as well as the costs and risks involved, we’ll first briefly outline how this technology works.
Hydrogen cars, fuel cells, etc.: what you need to know | BMW.com

A hydrogen vehicle is a vehicle that uses hydrogen fuel for motive power. The power plants of such vehicles convert the chemical energy of hydrogen to mechanical energy either by burning hydrogen in an internal combustion engine, or, more commonly, by reacting hydrogen with oxygen in a fuel cell to run electric motors. Widespread use of hydrogen for fueling transportation is a key element of a proposed hydrogen economy.

As of 2019, there are three models of hydrogen cars publicly available in select markets: the Toyota Mirai the world's first mass produced dedicated fuel cell electric vehicle, the Hyundai Nexo, and the Honda Clarity. Several other companies are working to develop hydrogen cars.
Hydrogen vehicle - Wikipedia
The above technology is not here yet but we haven't burned all the oil either so the rave is on -

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You gonna come home after work and plug your electric car into your solar panels?

No, but I might use the same plug I plug my dryer into.
Or I use a hydrogen fuel cell to light up my home and power my car to work~~~~

Hydrogen Fueled Trains Coming to Europe
The fuel cell systems, based on the Company’s Heavy-Duty HD series fuel cells, will be developed to meet European train compliance regulations. The first units are expected to be delivered in 2016 following prototype work slated for late 2015.
Hydrogen Superior to Batteries

What are the pros and cons? Read on for the answers to all the key questions.
Fewer pollutants, less noise – these are among the many great hopes for electrically powered vehicles.
The technology in question is the hydrogen engine, also known as the fuel cell electric vehicle, or FCEV. Before we discuss the pros and cons of hydrogen fuel cell cars, as well as the costs and risks involved, we’ll first briefly outline how this technology works.
Hydrogen cars, fuel cells, etc.: what you need to know | BMW.com

A hydrogen vehicle is a vehicle that uses hydrogen fuel for motive power. The power plants of such vehicles convert the chemical energy of hydrogen to mechanical energy either by burning hydrogen in an internal combustion engine, or, more commonly, by reacting hydrogen with oxygen in a fuel cell to run electric motors. Widespread use of hydrogen for fueling transportation is a key element of a proposed hydrogen economy.

As of 2019, there are three models of hydrogen cars publicly available in select markets: the Toyota Mirai the world's first mass produced dedicated fuel cell electric vehicle, the Hyundai Nexo, and the Honda Clarity. Several other companies are working to develop hydrogen cars.
Hydrogen vehicle - Wikipedia
The above technology is not here yet but we haven't burned all the oil either so the rave is on -

Why would you waste so much energy, and money, to use hydrogen?