Climate Problem? Data say no.

[Sunsettommy]

There is no more debate, climate change is real.
Deal with it.

Pick any point on the Earth's surface ... tell me what the climate was 100 years ago ... what the climate is today ... and what the climate will be in 100 years from now ... if all three answers are the same, then climate isn't changing ...

Deal with it ...

As previously noted, there is no debate. Climate change is real, get used to it.

You lie over and over, there are people right here debating it, then too I have posted links to over 500 published papers by mostly scientists, that doesn't support the AGW conjecture.

Nobody denies that climate changes, that old worn out strawman based lie needs to be burned and buried.

 

[mamooth]

You lie over and over, there are people right here debating it, then too I have posted links to over 500 published papers by mostly scientists, that doesn't support the AGW conjecture.

No, you haven't. You've claimed you have, but that's one of your ongoing frauds, since those papers don't say what you claim they say.

If you'd have looked at them, you'd know that, but you never look at your own sources. You just blindly copy lists of sources that someone else gave you.

 

[Elton]

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.

I just looked at my globe and the only part of the tropics they didn't look at was Africa. Brazil, Australia, Thailand, are all in the tropics. Do you not know where the tropics are?

 

[Elton]

You lie over and over, there are people right here debating it, then too I have posted links to over 500 published papers by mostly scientists, that doesn't support the AGW conjecture.

No, you haven't. You've claimed you have, but that's one of your ongoing frauds, since those papers don't say what you claim they say.

If you'd have looked at them, you'd know that, but you never look at your own sources. You just blindly copy lists of sources that someone else gave you.

I have been looking at the papers he has been posting, and those that others have posted as well, and it is pretty clear that it is you who are the liar. And a very hysterical one at that.

 

[mamooth]

I just looked at my globe and the only part of the tropics they didn't look at was Africa.

And the Indian subcontinent, and the middle east, and most of southeast asia.

That is, they left out most of the hot areas of the world.

I suggest now squealing out a mealymouthed "But technically those aren't the tropics, even if they are the hottest areas in the world!" defense.

 

[mamooth]

I have been looking at the papers he has been posting,

No, you haven't. You're just playing lapdog. Yes, it is obvious.

If you disagree, start listing these papers and talking about what they say. If you're not lying, that should be easy for you.

 

[ReinyDays]

I just looked at my globe and the only part of the tropics they didn't look at was Africa.

And the Indian subcontinent, and the middle east, and most of southeast asia.

That is, they left out most of the hot areas of the world.

I suggest now squealing out a mealymouthed "But technically those aren't the tropics, even if they are the hottest areas in the world!" defense.

Nice cover ... but doesn't change the fact you lied ... and are ignorant about climatology ... it is at Barrow, Alaska and Archangel, Russia where temperature increase is supposed to be the most damaging ... double global average ... you can't even get that straight ... liar ...

The Middle East is tropical ... I'm never going to let you forget you posted that bozo statement ... every thread, for the rest of your life ...

 

[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, 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.

I named the source and even an idiot like sunset was able to find it, so you are more STUPID than an idiot!

You failed to produce the link, that is what he commented on, even when I mentioned your repeated failure to produce the link, you continue to ignore it..

You were caught red handed in your failure/refusal to provide the link. You lost a few posts because you were trolling and flaming me.

I finally had to do YOUR work, dig up the paper, which I duly read, discovered that you never read it since it actually supports my declining deaths argument all along, thus YOU never had a case from the start. Your stupid deflection from deaths to events is a sign that this well supported statement was something YOU couldn't address at all:

"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 "

You NEVER have addressed this part at all, you deflect over and over to your stupid "events" bullcrap, your dishonest tactic is why you are a failure here.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You lie over and over, there are people right here debating it, then too I have posted links to over 500 published papers by mostly scientists, that doesn't support the AGW conjecture.

No, you haven't. You've claimed you have, but that's one of your ongoing frauds, since those papers don't say what you claim they say.

If you'd have looked at them, you'd know that, but you never look at your own sources. You just blindly copy lists of sources that someone else gave you.

You lie just as easily as Crepitus, is he your brother?

I have posted actual papers that shows low CO2 sensitivity, there are hundreds of such papers, you and others deny the the evidence that are in your face.

You are so brainwashed, if you look in the mirror to see your face, you would deny you have a nose, crooked at is, because your propagandists told you to deny it exist.

Stop your lying, I have proven your lies over and over, now others are increasingly calling you a liar too, how come you don't wise up to your lies? many here knows you lie a lot, so why continue them?

 

[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.

You have provided no links to back up your claims.

I named the source and even an idiot like sunset was able to find it, so you are more STUPID than an idiot!

Then you admit you never read the paper behind the chart....., the own you never posted a link to....

YOU ARE FAKE NEWS!

 

[mamooth]

I have posted actual papers that shows low CO2 sensitivity,

And as reality has demonstrated CO2 sensitivity is much higher, both you and those "papers" look really stupid now.

You either post stupid shit and pretend it's science, or you lie outright about the science. That's why you have to hide here, in this little cult SafeSpace. If you said the nonsense that you say here in public, everyone would laugh you out of the room.

It's not going to get any better for you. You'll remain a cult laughingstock until the end of your days, unless you choose to leave the cult. But since your self-image is now based entirely on your cult affiliation, that's not going to happen.

 

[mamooth]

Nice cover ... but doesn't change the fact you lied ...

I did? Where? You're doing that thing you do so often with me, which is rage-weep at me out of helpless butthurt. Remember, when you cry at me, it just encourages me. It demonstrates that I've triggered you with facts again, and so I should keep doing it.

and are ignorant about climatology ... it is at Barrow, Alaska and Archangel, Russia where temperature increase is supposed to be the most damaging ... double global average ... you can't even get that straight ... liar ...

Wow, that's stupid.

I see that it's not just butthurt driving your actions. It's also stupidity. You lack the ability to reason logically, so you lack the ability to understand that the conclusions you reach are really stupid.

The Middle East is tropical ... I'm never going to let you forget you posted that bozo statement ... every thread, for the rest of your life ...

But I didn't say any such thing. You're just lying outright now. You do that because you're too gutless to admit you can't debate what I actually say.

Just look at what butthurt combined with mindless cult devotion has turned you into. That's part of the sanity death spiral that all of my pout-stalkers inevitably enter into. Try to pull out now, while you still can.

 

[ReinyDays]

Nice cover ... but doesn't change the fact you lied ...

I did? Where? You're doing that thing you do so often with me, which is rage-weep at me out of helpless butthurt. Remember, when you cry at me, it just encourages me. It demonstrates that I've triggered you with facts again, and so I should keep doing it.

and are ignorant about climatology ... it is at Barrow, Alaska and Archangel, Russia where temperature increase is supposed to be the most damaging ... double global average ... you can't even get that straight ... liar ...

Wow, that's stupid.

I see that it's not just butthurt driving your actions. It's also stupidity. You lack the ability to reason logically, so you lack the ability to understand that the conclusions you reach are really stupid.

The Middle East is tropical ... I'm never going to let you forget you posted that bozo statement ... every thread, for the rest of your life ...

But I didn't say any such thing. You're just lying outright now. You do that because you're too gutless to admit you can't debate what I actually say.

Just look at what butthurt combined with mindless cult devotion has turned you into. That's part of the sanity death spiral that all of my pout-stalkers inevitably enter into. Try to pull out now, while you still can.

And you think Jordan is a tropical paradise ... haw haw haw haw haw ...

 

[watchingfromafar]

I encourage every one here to watch “Rise Of Supper Storms”, it was broadcast on NOVA, channel 1018 KLRUHD; its a real eye opener
What Impact Will The Rise of Superstorms, Sea Levels Have On The Texas Coast?
From Sandy to Maria: What to know about the "Rise of Superstorms" | Peril & Promise | PBS
-

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I encourage every one here to watch “Rise Of Supper Storms”, it was broadcast on NOVA, channel 1018 KLRUHD; its a real eye opener
What Impact Will The Rise of Superstorms, Sea Levels Have On The Texas Coast?
From Sandy to Maria: What to know about the "Rise of Superstorms" | Peril & Promise | PBS
-

“Rise Of Supper Storms”,

I saw the movie.

 

[watchingfromafar]

Stop your lying, I have proven your lies over and over, now others are increasingly calling you a liar too, how come you don't wise up to your lies? many here knows you lie a lot, so why continue them?

Are you talking about dump-?