and so far global warmening hasn’t come close to doing anything
Again that’s for you to prove Gordon because the real authorities I read on this subject say it’s already killing 200k a year, and risks millions more through depleted glacial meltwaters, etc etc.
And… despite having enough coal to cook the planet 3 times over, we’re actually fast approaching peak fossil fuels anyway. As the experts say, we’ve got to leave oil, gas, and coal before it leaves us.
Utter nonsense. 12 of the last 13 years have been the hottest on record — this is so much tripe I’m amazed at their audacity.
Dave,
Since we are down to the level of cods wallop, I suggest you authenticate this statement instead of leaving it blowing in the wind, especially since in recent years it has been bending over and not standing tall and proud for all the global warmongerers.
Here’s a couple more articles for you both by scientists, here and here.
Kininmonth the author of the first piece is the former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre. He was an Australian representative and consultant to the World Meteorological Organization on climate issues and is the author of Climate Change: A Natural Hazard (Multi-science Publishing Co., 2004).
Also, it seems the Government is starting to wake up.
William Kininmonth is an Australian climate scientist noted for his views as an opponent of global warming theory and frequently writes on the topic of climate change. He believes that the warming trend of the recent century is not unusual, and he is critical of the simple model of climate systems represented by the IPCC. While Kininmonth believes that anthropogenic sources may make a small contribution to global warming, he believes the natural variability far exceeds that contribution, and this poses serious hazards for human kind.
Kininmonth suggests that it would be unwise to commit scarce resources to reduce carbon dioxide emissions when there is insufficient evidence to support the proposition that global warming is caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels. Like other global warming skeptics, such as Bjørn Lomborg, he believes that the diversion of resources from infrastructure projects, particularly in developing countries, would be counterproductive.
Kininmonth headed Australia’s National Climate Centre from 1986 to 1998, with responsibilities for monitoring Australia’s changing climate and advising the Australian government on the extent and severity of climate extremes. He was Australia’s delegate to the WMO Commission for Climatology, was a member of Australia’s delegations to the Second World Climate Conference (1990) and the subsequent intergovernmental negotiations for the Framework Convention on Climate Change (1991-1992).
Kininmouth is a science adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute, formerly the Center for Science and Public Policy.
Oh no! A meteorologist disagrees! Wow, at least a meteorologist should be able to contribute to the science dialogue?
Here’s the thing. Has he published any peer reviewed science, or has he banded together with a bunch of has-beens no hopers Exxon funded layabout nobodies out to sell a book?
I say again: the real scientific debate is in the peer reviewed journals, not on “Lord Monckton’s” pay packet and club of the disaffected.
Patz: That’s a great question, and according to the World Health Organization, who looked at four different disease outcomes including malnutrition, malaria, flooding, and diarrheal disease—just looking at those four climate-sensitive diseases—they estimate over 200,000 people are killed every year from just the warming that has occurred between 1970 and 2000. And what’s unique about our paper—that’s I think, the real important message here—is that we took those numbers from the World Health Organization. Actually that time it was 160,000 deaths every year from climate change. We mapped those diseases and you see regional differences. For example, malaria and malnutrition really occur in Africa, poor parts of Asia, South America; and then we put that map of climate-sensitive diseases, up against a map of CO2 emissions—and we have a fabulous student at SAGE, Holly Gibbs, who actually put this map together—and when you put the CO2 emissions map next to the World Health Organization map of diseases, there is a stark contrast and those most vulnerable to the health risk of climate change are the least responsible when you look at the maps together. So for example, the United States’ CO2 emissions as far as tons of carbon emitted per person every year is six tons, the global average is one ton. Canada and Australia are similarly emitting like we are at that level.
Got any reason to doubt these figures from the World Health Organisation? Any hard evidence that they didn’t die from global warming? Any credible, peer reviewed scientific papers rebutting this work? Any reason other than sheer personal bias?
David P,
quote the “moon made of cheese” men all you want, again, and again, and again. Repeat. Again. Repeat..... and then somehow get me to respond to the cheese-men again. And again.
But whatever you do!, don’t return the favour and answer the 2 questions I’ve been asking you for 4 months now.
Anyway, we’ve got to stop those fire-breaks ‘cause they’re costing us money and liiiike, there’s no evidence there WILL be a fire this year and liiiike, it’s a conspiracy to distract us from the gospel maaaan.
Ah, so we’re going for a causal link between global warmening and malaria. I must write to my science teachers back at school and tell them that all that stuff they told me about germs was off the mark. A climatologist told me so.
Or have I missed something again?
But it does get us back to the question of whether the firebreaks analogy is correct. Because there is, I would argue, a direct causal link between bushfires, and houses burning. Not all bushfires, and not all houses, I admit that, but it’s a tighter link than the one you’re suggesting between warmening and 200 000 deaths.
Anyway, it’s all a bit complex, but if you can just fill in a bit on how climate change causes malaria, I’ll give you some fascinating stuff about how cholera is caused by miasma.
I note you gave my question a wide berth, not that I blame you.
Here’s the thing. Has he published any peer reviewed science, or has he banded together with a bunch of has-beens no hopers Exxon funded layabout nobodies out to sell a book?
OK you can sneer at Exxon whether or not it funds these guys - try proving your claim.
has-beens no hopers
Is it really necessary to stoop to this level of intolerant bigotry?
I suppose you’ll tell me next the global warmongerers aren’t financied by anyone, just do it 100% altruistically??
OK Gordon,
just because you don’t like it, we’ll write off the global warming increases in malaria (without a peer reviewed science report that actually debunks the climate science / WHO report or anything like that). Just because it’s you OK? Then there’s still the drought thing, the famine thing, and hey? Who knows what else that pesky peer reviewed sciency WHO report included, we certainly wouldn’t read it would we? ;-) You’re the one with the burden of proof in this Gordon. Dave P at least links to “scientists” (even if they are of the non-peer reviewed variety). In the meantime, how about those New Orleans levies hey? Building them is an enormous cost and certainly wastes a lot of time and energy, I think we need a few sceptical articles on those levies as a distraction from gospel work.
Dave P,
I asked these questions in a previous thread maybe 6 months ago, and you still want me to chase after all your sticks? Ain’t gonna happen until you show me the common forum decency of answering my questions.
By any measure, it’s simply your turn. Woof woof!
1. What is wrong with the way Scientists measure Co2 molecules reacting with various spectra of energy?
2. What is wrong with the way they’ve measured the % increase in global Co2, and then extrapolated a corresponding increase in energy stored in the atmosphere?
Is it really necessary to stoop to this level of intolerant bigotry?
I don’t know what else to call it when they keep repeating the same tired old myths that have been repeatedly spanked down by the peer reviewed science, and yet they sulk, write another book, and convince people like you to get in the way of us building the necessary “fire-breaks”.
Again, I hope that the peer-reviewed climate science gives us some good news soon, but the “Cheese-men” make me ill.
OK Gordon,
just because you don’t like it, we’ll write off the global warming increases in malaria
No, we’ll ask the simple question of whether warmth causes malaria.
But let’s assume it does for a moment, just as medieval doctors believed that cholera was caused by bad smells, or ‘miasma’.
There are other diseases too, and they tend to increase in incidence as the temperature drops. If the temperature in a region increases, the number of deaths from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases decrease—and by a lot more than those who die from malaria etc. The 200k figure is suspect because it doesn’t take into account the health benefits of global warming.
As we’re sticking with the firebreaks analogy, it is like discovering that building firebreaks causes earthquakes that destroy neighbouring cities, but still insisting that those pesky bushfires must be stopped because we love preserving houses built in the bush.
Whereas it might be more sensible, if you discovered the negative consequences of firebreak building, to stop doing it.
By the way, I notice that you stuck in a reference to New Orleans levees. Are you now changing analogies? I thought we were going to try and workshop the one we had.
No, we’ll ask the simple question of whether warmth causes malaria.
Gordon, is using this kind of straw-man really doing your side of the camp any favours? Replace the word “causes” with “spreads” and you’ll find all the straw puffs out of your argument.
Meanwhile, your suggestion that the WHO paper ignores the possible benefits of warming is just that, a suggestion, but it’s got no basis in reality.
Steve: Okay, let me ask you—I saw Bjorn Lomborg being interviewed recently and he was asked about the health impacts of global warming and he said, “What people forget is that if temperatures rise, we are going to have fewer deaths from people freezing to the death.” So what’s your response [to] that kind of an argument?
Patz: Well, that’s an interesting argument and it has been looked at. In fact, in the last three United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, the Health Expert Panel looked at all health outcomes, and there are winners and losers, there are pluses and minuses and there will be fewer deaths from cold-related mortality, that’s true, but when you take these in aggregate and you look across all of the climate-sensitive outcomes and you weigh them, the pluses and the minuses, the conclusion on balance [is that] there will be many more adverse effects than positive ones, but there will be some positive ones. In fact, there was a study that showed that Rocky Mountain spotted fever may decline in the Southeast United States because it’ll get too hot for ticks. You know, so there will be winners and losers, but on balance, we think that the people looking at the impacts have really come out with the conclusion that most of the impacts will be adverse.
If you have a peer reviewed paper questioning the WHO methodology, I’d be glad to read it.
As we’re sticking with the firebreaks analogy, it is like discovering that building firebreaks causes earthquakes that destroy neighbouring cities, but still insisting that those pesky bushfires must be stopped because we love preserving houses built in the bush.
No it’s not like that at all. Stern and friends explain that it’s more like learning that our current lifestyle and products are poisoning our neighbour’s farmlands and will eventually poison our own, and that there are a few costs to industry but the eventual new economy will revolutionise energy independence, create a booming economy, and be more socially just.
You’re arguing for a fossil fuel economy that pollutes our cities, increases lung cancer in the country, leaves us vulnerable to oil shocks, creates a widening trade deficit, sees jobs and money pouring overseas and funds people in countries that don’t like us very much.
No, we’ll ask the simple question of whether warmth causes malaria.
Gordon, is using this kind of straw-man really doing your side of the camp any favours? Replace the word “causes” with “spreads” and you’ll find all the straw puffs out of your argument.
No, actually, you were the one who suggested that global warming is “killing” people. Now you are wanting to tone the language down. We’ve gone from ‘Kill’ to ‘causes malaria etc.’ to ‘aids in the spread of’.
And that’s good, because table-thumping alarmism doesn’t help clarity of thought. Global warming hasn’t killed anyone; malaria has.
And malaria is not caused by global warming, it’s caused by germs.
You’re avoiding the data, the conclusions based on that data, and the authorities our governments appoint to monitor these things. Other than that you’re making perfect sense.
(edit to add)
As for “table thumping” all us “warmening types” want to do is build a “fire-break”.
But because your lot are tying themselves to the “tractors” to prevent the “bulldozing” of the glorious fossil fuel industry, us warmening types are forced to explain that without the sad loss of the wonderful fossil fuel industry, it’s pretty hard to stop the “fire” burning down the “village”. That involves risk mitigation scenarios and a little table thumping in the process, because human beings tend not to do stuff unless they have a powerful motivator, like fear.
(OK, that metaphor is stretched beyond all recognition, but at least it didn’t involve fire breaks causing earthquakes.)
More on fear.... I’d love it if people became Christians from a purely rational perspective, but why, I’m sure I’ve heard you use some pretty strong table thumping, fear inducing language in your time as well. And we’re all the better for it! So it seems there might just be a time for a bit of table-thumping, fear inducing, motivational language now and then.
10th hottest year on record globally, 4th hottest year on record in the Murray-Darling, AND it’s meant to be a “cooler” La Nina year. I thought if global warming was simply “going away” that temperatures might be less “trended” towards the upper end? Like, what happened to “completely average year of temperatures” or even “10th coolest year on record”? Hmmm, yeah, global warming really just vanished in 2008. ;)
