Climate lies explained in 1 chart
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (57)
sorted by:
And that's Spain, which for you Americans out there, isn't the coldest country in Europe.
So the Spanish, people who have adapted and acclimated to temperatures higher than typical of their neighbors, have more trouble surviving when it gets really cold than when it gets really hot?
I'm floored.
Holy shit what a retarded argument.
"The Spanish are a swarthy and heat-loving people. They are uniquely vulnerable to the cold! Why, if you throw an ice cube at a Spaniard, he will shatter like a white walker hit with dragonglass!"
How stupid can you be? Spain has pretty cold winters: https://www.quora.com/Does-it-snow-in-Spain
OVERALL, COLD KILLS 20X MORE PEOPLE THAN HEAT
Antonio's point - that cold kills proportionately FEWER people in Spain because it doesn't really get that cold there compared to other places - is CORRECT. The global average K:D ratio is 20:1, not Spain's 6:1.
Because they aren’t actually concerned about the deaths. They’re concerned with what more closely aligns with their chosen narrative.
That’s the unfortunate answer to almost every question these days. Reality is constantly being sacrificed at the alter of ideology.
This is possibly one of the dumbest boomer memes I've seen.
Generally, Climate Change is talking about large scale system-level threats. Now, I'm willing to bet there might be some Watermellons talking about stupid unrelated shit like that weird insulation movement in Britain, but I don't ever really here anyone who actually knows anything about the climate talking about heat deaths.
My link didn't come up with anything: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62113-0/fulltext
I'm not really clear about these numbers, or how they would be effected by Covid, because that doesn't seem relevant.
I would say that Heat Stroke is far more dangerous than freezing because it can come out of absolutely no where if you haven't been properly drinking water, and by the time you're effected by it, you are effectively too incapacitated to cool yourself off.
Heat waves have a nasty habit of killing a lot of people when people aren't ready for it. I think one infamous case in the 1970's lead to the deaths of nearly 150 people in the city of Chicago as the heat got too much for elderly people in tenement buildings, and electrical demand caused grids to fail, creating a loss of AC for entire buildings worth of people. This then caused hundreds to die.
It's possible that Spain is much more used & prepared to deal with extreme temperatures, as they have a culture that's been dealing with it for over 1000 years. On of the reasons Siestas exist is because you really do have to stop working if the temperature in the afternoon has climbed to 125 F. This is effectively like a cultural defense mechanism. Similar to how, I'm not kidding, the Romans discovered pants being used by barbarians in the north of Europe. When living in cold, wet, forested, hilly, climates: pants are preferable to togas and robes.
By contrast, when you're not prepared for a cold snap (like Texas wasn't), you could end up with all sorts of additional problems that even northern states don't face, like damaged infrastructure that wasn't properly insulated for cold temperatures.
In fact, someone who is a climate activist could completely turn this graph around on you and point out that the issue is about changing climates, not just that literally every spot on the earth is always going to be warmer. They would tell you, accurately, that no one actually claims this as an effect of climate change.
Thing is, this graph and source don't make any sense, so I can't point anything out about this.
Really not that hard to find. Sites sometimes move their links around.
Here's the PDF and the graphs on page 3 seem to indicate that any cold just wears you down, with many cites with a slow incline in deaths as the temperature decreases. Eyeballing the Spain chart, it seems this graphic is correct as their deaths in the chart top out at 30 C which is not really very hot.
"Most of this mortality burden was caused by days colder than the optimum temperature (7·29%), compared with days warmer than the optimum temperature (0·42%)"
It seems like you have a reactionary response to this meme and are looking for ways to rationalize it being wrong, but it appears to be fundamentally correct.
What these charts show I think is that deaths are from temperatures that you're really not prepared for, either high or low. Compare London to New York for instance, with London having huge heat and cold risk of death from 'extreme' temperatures like 80 F and 32 F. The difference is UK is surrounded by water so rarely get extreme heat or cold and are unprepared for either.
Gizortnik is a libtard. He can only output what his NPC firmware dictates. He is not capable of actually engaging in rational thought. He isn't someone you can have a good faith debate with. His mind is not open. You can show him all the proof in the world and he would just make an excuse to reject it and cling to his programming.
This is why arguing with libtards is pointless. They are nothing but a human botnet. The only point to engaging them in PUBLIC debate is to expose them as frauds so that 3rd party observers can be red pilled against their talking points.
Sit down, faggot. You clearly don't know shit about me. If you knew shit about me, you would know that if you were capable of having a conversation, you would have done so. I've been here before you, talking to people I've disagreed with, and having productive conversations for that entire time.
All you and Fauxgnaws have done has been retards instead of addressing any points with a modicum of sense. The title and the meme is silly if you want to argue about Climate Change. There are much better arguments to make than this meme, which isn't useful in any argument about Climate Change. The very premise isn't well founded as an argument against it.
seethe
Try telling the truth.
Normally evidence is good for determining whether or not something is correct, but if I don't have it, I can't do anything with it. You then gave me the evidence and complained that I had "reactionary" attitudes after not having evidence.
This meme is retarded because it's badly done. This is a meme pretending to be a figure from a scientific article, but as you can see, the graphic isn't in the document.
This doesn't represent world wide deaths, in fact there's only two countries that were identified in the southern hemisphere, and nothing at all from the entire continent of Africa.
Then we have to go back to the absolute base premise here that Climate Change only corresponds to the highest local temperatures. It doesn't. That's not how Climates work.
Again, we are talking about the average global temperature increasing by a matter of 5 degrees by 2100. Except for some crazy Watermelon death cultist, we're not talking about Spain only being at 250 F from now on.
This is a fucking asinine comment. It literally does not follow that being an island prevents you from being exposed to extreme temperatures.
It's like saying, "Well, I own a table, so that's why I don't tend to fall down." Yeah, sure maybe you can grab the table or something on the off chance you fall near it, but this is effectively a complete non-sequitur.
The reason the UK doesn't get extreme cold temperatures isn't because it's an island. It's benefiting from the fact that it's sitting towards the end of the "Atlantic Conveyor Belt" which actually increases temperatures and stops it from being as cold a northern Canada.
Yeah, I know, that's why I said it:
It's possible that Spain is much more used & prepared to deal with extreme temperatures, as they have a culture that's been dealing with it for over 1000 years. On of the reasons Siestas exist is because you really do have to stop working if the temperature in the afternoon has climbed to 125 F. This is effectively like a cultural defense mechanism. Similar to how, I'm not kidding, the Romans discovered pants being used by barbarians in the north of Europe. When living in cold, wet, forested, hilly, climates: pants are preferable to togas and robes.
By contrast, when you're not prepared for a cold snap (like Texas wasn't), you could end up with all sorts of additional problems that even northern states don't face, like damaged infrastructure that wasn't properly insulated for cold temperatures.
All I did was put in the document id number and search found the source right off. Not even paywalled. So to me I'm thinking this person didn't put in the least effort to verify the source and then wrote a dozen paragraphs saying why the graphic is wrong.
What's a better word for getting upset at the truth, like denialist maybe or unhinged?
There's a reason why "the ocean plays a moderating effect on climates, warming or cooling the air that blows across water and onto land" is written for children. Because if an adult doesn't know this then you wonder what's wrong with them.
Normally the link should just work since it's a recent meme. So instead of crying to me that I'm a "reactionary" because the source isn't sourced well, maybe just deal with the fact that I said that I couldn't vouch for the information.
Cool, since you're still being a punk, I assume you can explain to me how the Arctic Ocean prevents Dead Horse Alaska from getting cold. After all, if you can't what's fucking wrong with you, retard?
Stop acting like an idiot.
Then stop sniping at me to justify a bad meme that doesn't help your argument.
The meme is correct, both in data and conclusion, and you're a retard who pretends not to know the north pacific ocean is cold.
"Why are the poles cold can anybody explain that to me? No really I don't have Down's why do people keep asking me that."
No it is not. There is 0 scientific basis to claim that climate change will bring about ANY negative effects except for a very very slow and gradual rise in the sea level.
All the shit about desertification and all that - total bullshit that exists only in media doomsaying, not scientific studies.
That's complete and total bullshit. Cold kills 20x more than heat. The reason is that heat stroke is VERY EASY to avoid. It's almost impossible unless you are going out of your way to do hard physical labor in the hot sun. All societies which have these conditions already know not to do that. That's why mexicans have the "siesta", for example.
Nope. Heat kills jack shit next to snowstorms. Heat does NOTHING to you in an air conditioned car or building. A snow storm can trap your car and kill you very easily with very little you can do about it. Surviving a winter in a cold area is 100x harder than "surviving" a summer in a hot area.
The Texas power grid was fine when it ran on fossil fuels years ago. It ONLY got fucked up recently because of the HUGE transition to wind power, which ate shit and failed during the snowstorm. And no, "weatherizing" wind turbines is not good enough. It's very expensive and it greatly reduces the power they generate regardless. Wind power is just shitty when it snows.
All the libtard media LIED about why Texas ate shit, but the truth was that so much coal and natural gas had been taken offline in recent years and replaced by wind, that there was very little margin for error or slack left in the system if wind failed.
No, they could not.
"climate change" is just a misnomer for GLOBAL WARMING. No "climate change" activist is arguing anything other than "global warming is caused by human CO2 emissions". That's their whole position. They only switched the name in a cynical attempt to be able to lie and say dumb shit like that snowstorms were caused by "climate change" to deceive idiots.
Yes, that is exactly what they are arguing. Obviously the earth is not a uniform temperature, but climate change shills argue that the GLOBAL temperatures are going to go UP, EVERYWHERE. None of them argue that there are safe islands where global warming isn't going to happen.
I'm highlighting this comment because of how fucking dangerous it is. Heat waves have long been understood to be dangerous, and have led to people dying. That's why you're supposed to check on your fucking elderly neighbors, and there's a real risk of the power grid failing due to demand.
You don't need to be doing hard labor to suffer heat stroke, you just need to be not drinking enough water, and not be cooling yourself regularly. I've had to drag my family members in from the outside from cutting grass because I noticed that they were starting to get heat-sick because they weren't drinking fucking water.
It's particularly dangerous in cities with public housing tenements.
Saying heat does nothing because of AC is equally as stupid as saying cold does nothing because of internal heating (which has existed longer than AC).
I'll deal with the other comments without quotes because they get annoying.
Yes, Climate Change does talk about system level threats whether you think it's evidenced or not.
As for whether or not it's evidenced, it is, and you are just wrong.
Climate Change is a more accurate term for "global warming" because global warming is a misnomer because too many people... like you... assume that what that means is that every single person's temperature is universally going to raise, despite the fact that there has NEVER been any scientific basis for that claim, and no one actually involved in the science makes that claim because it's asinine. Once again, the thing that is warming is the average planetary air premature, which I will remind you is around 51 F. That increasing by 3-6 degrees is the explanation for the wider climatological effects.
Yes, that includes desertification, and that also includes a reduction in Tundra, which happens to be economically benefiting Canada. Some places may also experience cooling due to climatalogical shifts. There's no suggestion that it's going to happen yet, but one example would be the Atlantic Conveyor Belt no longer moving warm water northwards, which would dramatically cool northern Europe, and make the UK & Germany as cold as Canada. That would still be Climate Change that would be the result of the warming of the average global temperature.
The cold snap in Texas would still have been a cold snap regardless of how much of the electrical grid was still using fossil fuels. I'm talking about the fact that they were still unprepared for the cold snap. For example, many roads were slippery and impassible because there was no salt. Instead they had to use some weird combination of beat juice to de-ice some of the roads. I have family that live there and were very entertained by the comical insanity of Texans being exposed to snow and ice, and flailing wildly in their response.
I fucking said that.
What an odd thing to say! CO2 is more or less uniformly distributed in the atmosphere, so to a first-order approximation you would, indeed, expect the temperature of every place on earth to go up uniformly. That's the basis of the Arrhenius model that started all this off about a century ago. Of course Ninos/Ninas/AMO/PMOs will modify this, so no one really expects a uniform increase in temperature.
Also: "Climate Change" is in no way a more accurate term for "global warming" -- it's merely unfalsifiable. Since you're on KIA2, you obviously understand that the left uses language as a cudgel. "Climate Change" is simply a strategy to force people to say... 'well, okay, obviously there's climate change going on, but how much of it is attributable to CO2?' -- this makes it seem like us deniers are conceding the point at the outset.
And: If you're going to quote temperatures, you're probably better off using Kelvin, so that people understand that we're looking at a potential change of 2K against a background of 280K.
And you would be wrong at every point. Fucking gravity isn't distributed uniformly across the Earth. Why would an atmospheric gas effected by wind be uniformly distrusted?
Worse, this is a nonsensical idea because even if we take the most reductive analysis of how greenhouse gasses work, we accept that light gets reflected into the earth from the atmosphere, and water holds heat. But primarily, all the heat is coming from light.
Is light uniformly distributed across the Earth?
No.
So then there would be no reason to assume heat increases would be uniformly distributed.
It's not unfalsifiable. It's just true. Those are two different things, and it's why scientists look at Climate Skeptics like crazy people because arguments like "humans can't effect the climate" are preposterous, considering we know non-human animals and plants can effect climates; and arguments like "the Climate's always changing" is asinine, because of course it is, it's just that the rate of change now is far faster than in all other instances outside mass extinction events. It's as if billions of humans, putting out large quantities of greenhouse gasses, and terraforming the planet, might have an effect on Climate.
One of those effects is an increase in the average planetary air temperature.
No one cares what you think. This is part of the problem. The political Left don't give a shit what you think you are or are not conceding because they want power, and don't care what your rhetoric is. Scientists don't care what you are conceding because you are simply wrong.
If you are against the Left's anti-nuclear policies because "radiation doesn't exist", Leftists don't care because you're their enemy, and scientists don't care why you think something completely wrong.
Unfortunately, this means there's no way to have meeting of the minds on this. The Left, don't want to, and Scientists, frankly, don't really want to waste time having to explain to you shit that they have evidenced and documented for decades, only for you to reject it because you don't understand it and don't care to.
This is why a scientist would think you're a fucking idiot, and won't talk to you.
Picking a different unit means nothing. Celsius, Kelvin, Fahrenheit, British Thermal Units, Joules, Calories. Hell, make up your own fucking unit of measurement and just give us the conversion factor. You know what? Fuck it. It's a change in energy! Measure it in fucking Work.
It's literally irrelevant.
You already recognized the image as a meme, so why are you trying to analyze it as a non-meme? The point is to convey a package of ideas. Here, all I'm really seeing is "climate change alarmism is illogical" and "talking heads are untrustworthy", chained together by what I think is common knowledge "talking heads supply most climate change alarmism". If I was skimming data for affirmations, that's what I'd get from this.
At least, I think this is the type of meme where it's designed for an audience to just spend under a minute thinking about (for a quick affirmation). Actually reading that text on the bottom (light gray on white so it's harder to notice), let alone typing out the source link (split across two lines so it's annoying), these aren't really expected to occur. An informational meme that's made with the intent of being thoroughly examined would be visually designed to encourage it.
When it provides me a source and someone says "Climate lies explained in 1 chart" which is complete rubbish, it gets a critique.
It's a bad meme. Hell, the petition link someone sent isn't a meme, but at least it's better. This is just unrelated nonsense.
Well, I'll agree it's a bad meme, at least. I would really prefer there be another term other than "meme" for this sort of thing, because I'm still operating off an older definition that involves a degree of humor and/or wit. Semantic gripe, I guess.
I'm okay with calling it a "low effort post" or "shitpost".
A good shitpost is like a work of art. ...Hmm, going off of Urban Dictionary, I guess I can go with "bad shitpost". It is meant to evoke an unproductive response, and is designed with poor tact.
Only problem is that I automatically think of text when I hear "shitpost", rather than images.
this is better than the meme above: http://petitionproject.org/index.php
That's still a misstating of the problem. Fucking increased plant growth is part of Climate Change. For example, we've actually seen Plant Migration as growing areas have shifted over the earth because their climates have changed.
Now how catastrophic are the changes in climate? Well, the Earth has no issues, but humans will have problems as this is going to dramatically change where and what is grown on our farms, and it may also make some cities rather untenable depending on the resulting economic shifts.
Not to mention there are serious concerns about how that change in food production might effect food and water prices, along with the potential to cause migrations (both internally and internationally).
Come on, man. The climate in the fucking 1100's was quite a bit warmer than it is now. And yet people lived in all the same places and managed just fine. The medieval warm period was VERY warm in comparison to what we are used to right now and yet there is no evidence of mass migration, city destruction and extinction. The Roman Warm period was also quite a bit warmer than it is now, a whole 2 degrees, and it is ALSO not associated with the end of civilization. Quite the opposite. Stop fear mongering.
I didn't say it was going to end civilization. Frankly, thanks to interconnected economies, the collapse of civilizations is less likely than it was in those previous periods. Climate Change has played a role in other earlier civilizations which couldn't respond to climactic shifts, but thankfully technology allows us to respond much faster.
However, that doesn't mean that we won't continue to see price shocks, rural displacement, rural poverty, the depopulation of some cities, and refugee crises. Highly centralized systems don't respond well to shocks. That's the point.
Climate Change is a bigger economic threat than Globalism is, and the Leftist systems that controlled the industrial heartland of America turned into The Rust Belt as a result of Leftist Globalism. Cleveland's population declined by 60%. Similar things happened to Detroit, Chicago, Flint, Ann Arbor, Youngstown and more.
Climate Change will have economic and political knock-on effects that will be destabalizing to our current system. You want to deal with the consequences of Climate Change? One of them is finishing the fucking border wall.
The changing climate (which isn't changing nearly as much as everybody seems to think) isn't a threat to anything. What IS a huge threat is the massive over-reaction the various governments are engaged in which WILL cause insane logistical bottlenecks and disrupt the market and availability of necessary goods through sheer centrally-planned incompetency. The market is SOOOO powerful when left alone that even IF the climate where fluctuation crazily, we would be fine.
It's absolutely a threat to food prices, farmers, and border security.
Government intervention and incompetence is what is threatening those things. If the assholes up top would stop fucking with the farmers, we wouldn't need to worry about the food supply at all.
Yeah, my biggest concerns are economic and immigration wise.
Spain is a hot country. Overall, cold kills 20x more: https://archive.ph/AyWou
This chart doesn't prove anything except that cold deaths are more common than heat deaths. To be evidence against climate change, you'd have to show that heat deaths have not increased over time. Even that's not strong evidence, given the increasing number of people with air conditioning.
I don't think death rates by temperature-specific ailments were the focus of climate change alarmists (seeing we're ignoring all other weather/earthquake casualties that they also try to attribute to calamity change/fracking). They've been concerned with ice caps, the sea level, and long-term feasibility of life on the planet.
If I hadn't spent my entire life being told that the ice caps are going to melt tomorrow and the sea is rising at a rate of one mile per second, only to look back ten years and realize that none of it actually happened, I might entertain the idea. Hell, I used to believe it, back when I was young enough not to know better. But after all these years, the best they've got is "the average temperature of the globe has gone up one degree", which I'm sorry, but I just cannot give less of a shit about.
Good. Me neither. My point was that the OP image misses most of what alarmists have been mostly screaming about for the last decade and a half.
OP's image is a valid refutation.
The sea level rise is a solved quantity. We already know how fast it is rising, and how fast it will continue to rise. The answer is very very slowly and steadily, to the point where it is a trivial and insignificant problem easily addressed by sea walls and slowly increasing the pad height of new construction in some low-lying coastal communities.
I guess I'm just missing what is being refuted by OP.
Alarmists are all over the place in their argumentation. They claim every severe weather event and natural disaster under the sun is because of climate change and CO2 output.
The fact that Spaniards suffer cold-specific casualties proportionately less than other Europeans, juxtaposed with the narrative fear porn about heat deaths, does not give me anything I think I could convince an alarmist with.
Their fear is about the future. They still think heat and ocean levels will be an actual problem, and that we'll lose the beloved polar bears.
climate change aka global warming = the earth's average temperature will go up slightly.
this is a good thing, because it will mean a small increase in heat deaths, but a much much larger decrease in cold deaths, for a net overall benefit to human health and safety.
There are other arguments for why global warming is good, such as the GLOBAL GREENING brought on by the fact that higher temperatures and more CO2 massively boost the farmable land and general plant biomass in the world, but OP's point is one of the significant arguments in favor of the fact that global warming will be a net benefit to society.
If you study the science, as I have, then you know that there is no scientific evidence of any ill effects from global warming other than sea level rise, which is easily adapted to. There is no evidence that global warming causes any increase in natural disasters of any kind, be it wild fires or hurricanes or volcanoes. Nor is there any evidence that a hotter earth means more deserts. Quite the opposite. The earth was 12-15C hotter in the past, and at those temperatures, it wasn't a barren hellscape, it was a lush jungle planet. High temperatures means more evaporation, and therefore more rain.
Guys, I'm just saying the OP is attacking a straw-man. Heat-related deaths in current year are not the thing that climate alarmists are ultimately worried about. https://www.wsj.com/articles/al-gores-climate-sequel-misses-a-few-inconvenient-facts-1501193349