2023 Was the worlds warmest year on record by far

Yes.

 

Death penalty for such cases. Attempted mass murder. Problem solved. Leftists will protest it.

 

Arson is rarely confirmed in cases of wildfires, but even in those rare cases where it is confirmed, a culprit usually is not identified

Again though, it's not the ignition of the fires that is so devastating, but the sheer magnitude of the fires we see today as opposed every century prior... and I'm not just talking about in the US, but worldwide. The 21st century is still only in it's first quarter, and the technology available for fighting fires is more advanced than ever, yet the 21st century has still seen more fires exceed 1 million acres than any other century in human history. Back when I was a kid and would go on camping trips, having a campfire was a regular part of the experience, but now days it's hard to find a campground that even allows campfires, because now days it's considered too dangerous due to the dryer climate.

A similar problem exists with category 5 hurricanes, the 20th century saw 35 category 5 hurricanes globally, where as the 21st century has already seen 29 just in its first quarter.

 

If you factor in all the building that has been happening recently it’s really no suprise it’s hotter today than ever.

They lay down pavement, and pavement does what?

Correct!! It absorbs heat. Which in turn makes the weather hotter for longer periods.

 

There is no pavement in the ocean.

 

Of course. Besides the methane, there are other planet-unfriendly factors resulting from factory farming. Those with a genuine concern don't need government to tell them what to do. I don't consume animal products myself, but I heard Roo meat is good.

 

Hi, you sure change time zones a lot!

My goal was a post with enough documented evidence that even the most avid science denier couldn’t protest too much. I’m afflicted with a rare disorder that manifests itself as an altered state of mind where I’m compelled to believe posts in science threads ought to contain science. I’ve tried just spouting unsubstantiated opinions, but just can’t do it. I’m obsessed with supporting posts on science with evidence. It’s really not my fault. I blame my parents and the schools I attended. One never really recovers from their childhood traumas, do they? LOL.

England and Wales seem to be Ike the rest of the world as far as deaths from heat/cold. About 800 annual deaths from heat and 60,500 annual deaths from cold.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(22)00138-3/fulltext

This study shows heat deaths increasing much faster than cold deaths decreasing in GB. It assumes residents of GB are intelligent enough to turn on the heat in winter but not with it enough to survive temps over 95°F.

https://jech.bmj.com/content/68/7/641.short?g=w_jech_ahead_tab

I didn’t look deep enough to see why the heat and cold related deaths differ between the two studies so much. The first study above is recent and the second one is from 20 years ago.

Perhaps you are referring to another study I’m unaware of. But this one shows cold being the big killer by orders of magnitude clear into the turn of the century. If cold is killing 40,000-60,000 in the UK and heat only 800-2000, they seem to be less adapted to cold than heat.

Yeh, I’ve heard the theory ocean currents will change or cease entirely and turn GB into an icebox. I think they started making books and movies about it back around the turn of the century. Now some are predicting it could occur next year! It’s impossible to make some people happy. They don’t like the climate now and they are petrified of it getting warmer or colder!

The folks in the high altitude equatorial city probably mostly love it. I love where I live and I got frostbite two days ago on several fingertips trying to change a fuel filter on a tractor when it was -10°F with 30 mph winds. LOL. Comfort and preference are a bit subjective. My only point is that human physiology in relation to ambient temp isn’t subjective. We are adapted to higher temps globally than we see today. Cold kills us hand over fist. We just aren’t made for it.

It’s an interesting question as to how much we should accelerate changes. I’d posit that humans and fossil fuels are both “natural”. But the majority of folks on the planet are going to accelerate change whether or not you and I think it’s wise. I just find it fascinating that there is so little understanding of what causes the changes and what the changes mean for humanity.

Sorry for the slow reply. Dealing with animals in the cold is also much more difficult and resource intensive than in warm weather. It’s wearing me out. Must be getting old…

 

It’s just one theory.


https://humanorigins.si.edu/research/climate-and-human-evolution/climate-effects-human-evolution

More selective pressure equals more physiological change. Assuming there isn’t extinction of course.

Yeh, pollution is a problem. The oceans can’t be used as garbage receptacles forever.

 

Hmm .. an interesting "hypothesis" pardon the technical correction but, is important.

Another hypothesis is that Aliens came - needed a worker drone - took a primitive hominid and created a genetic hybrid species to do the work that they did not want to do - "As Ancient Alien Theorists Suggest"

Always wondered about the bigger brain thing .. I look at an ant and think to myself .. an ant has an extremely small brain ... but is very smart .. are we that much smarter than ants .. relative to brain size ? How about an Elephant .. is an elephant smarter than a human because it has a bigger brain. Don't get me wrong .. I am sure there is a correlation between size and smarts .. just not as direct as some may think

In addition ... am a firm believer in the "Use it or lose it" Theory - see Critical Period Theory for more information .. that in the years of life .. if you are not exposed to language .. and you rescue that kid from the closet it has been kept in at the age of 5 ... and begin intense language training .. The Child will never be able to learn complex language skills .. Ever.

So I suggest that there may be more to human intelligence than simple brain mass but at same time suggest there may be a connection to more use being a factor in gaining intelligence .. and brain size .. for what ever reason .. more memory needed.

Another strange phenomenon .. is when Missionary's would go into God Forbidden places in Africa where the people did not have written language .. there memories were far superior. The missionary would give a sermon to a group .. then each person in the group would go back to their home tribe and recite the sermon verbatim. .. So when one learns writing .. memory ability decreases ..

 

For sure ... Cold has to be the bigger killer by far. Just in the inability to find food .. never mind a nasty cold snap that comes out of nowhere .

 

Yep. Which leads us to the fact “food” organisms are more highly adapted to warmer climate as well.

 

It’s actually part theory, part hypothesis. Natural selection is considered a theory. In this case that theory is applied to a new observation to see if it “fits”. Thus the new hypothesis.

To further complicate things there are really too many unknowns. Genetic variation from mutation has a more linear relationship with increased selection pressures resulting in fixation of beneficial traits/genes than genetic variation from recombination (sexual reproduction). It’s difficult to reconstruct the actual contribution from each source of genetic variation.

But yes, the difference between theory and hypothesis is important. Thanks for pointing that out.

I agree brain size isn’t necessarily predictive of “intelligence”. And intelligence is a bit subjective. The missionary would consider themselves more intelligent than the primitive African, but didn’t have the “intelligence” to survive in Africa without coddling by the African. Many today who consider themselves intelligent couldn’t survive a handful of days without coddling. Intelligent? Very subjective.

 

Hold on here .. just talking the hypothesis that big brain came from climate change .. sure you might use some theoretical material to support hypothesis but still a hypothesis.. Use or you lose it is a theory that applies but this does not make big brain come from climate change part theory .. .. jus sayin

and yes .. the reason is not a theory is because of too many unknowns .. It could be "Use it or Lose it" which is related to climate .. or could be other factors.

 

Intelligence increasing fastest during periods of rapid climate change is currently a hypothesis. Natural selection being the driving force behind increased intelligence is a well developed and accepted theory.

The rate of change in brain size and intelligence relative to rate of climate change is currently hypothesized. That climate change is a natural selective pressure is theory.

 

Back in Australia now! Ironically windy and cold here, but whatever...

Lol. And if you stick to that line of argument, you will remain King. But of the mountain or the hill?

I'm also reading a connection with age and social economic factors. Not surprising really... Interestingly the very old are unduly affected by extreme heat.

Who knows (I didn't feel like paying 40 pounds to read the article). It could be related to the type of housing. My brother and his family seem to suffer more in the heat because air conditioning is not at all practical in his London apartment. But it's not like it's going to kill them...

Do you think the characterizationis correct that cold (or heat) is a 'killer' here. We are talking about excess deaths, true, but it cold be that heat and cold (plus a winter cold) push an already unwell/infirmed/person over the edge. Or, they could have been more traffic fatalities with ice; or x,y,z etc. Of course sometimes it is completely the weather. In the great Texas freeze that you had 2021 cold temperatures definitely was a 'killer' - 246 people to be exact. I heard about anecdotes of literal hypothermia and death. Or would you dispute that number and say that the actual number of deaths caused was all the excess deaths over that time? Do you know acknowledge there is a difference here?

I've got déjà vu, because we've had this discussion before... When you attribute the deaths to nothing less than weather extremes, including cold and heat the numbers are actually lower according to the CDC. But still favouring cold overheat by a factor of 2 to 1 or something like that.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25073563/

And I definitely posted this for you before: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/86/7/bams-86-7-937.xml which declares heat is the bigger killer 4 to 1

And yet you can survive -10F with 30 mph winds

In that case you had better watch out for the heat, lol.

So that line of argument is all very well, but I just want to tickle you free of your grip on this particular line for a moment and take you back to the other line of argument that I'm playing with. It is more of a discussion about policy , a qualitative analysis of what we do with all this juicy data, when we pull our heads out of our computers and look at the real world around us - rather than a clear cut scientific decision. For example we know exactly (within statistical limits) how much lowering speed limits by increments of five miles per hour will reduce road deaths. And we are talking significant numbers, since road deaths account for something like 20 to 170 times as many deaths per year as temperature-extreme related deaths (depending on who you ask and I was generous in that calculation). So wouldn't it be an absolute imperative to reduce those road deaths as much as possible? And yet we still have enormously high speed limits, where the slight wrong turn of the wheel means possible instant death. I guess that's because we need to factor other things such as the ability for people to go about their daily business in an efficient and dignified fashion, which no doubt saves lives (life imbibing food/goods are delivered and less stress). And also just the general freedom of people to be able to go about their business. I'm betting that that decision of a particular speed limit in that particular zone is not just the result of numbers but also an intuition or a feeling of what feels just about right? With adjustments that are made when things go too much in one direction or the other. So, analogously, while a warning Earth may well save lives certain people under certain circumstance, what about all the other impacts that are not included in the analysis and the downstream effects of them - and what about the choice that people should be able to make about whether they want increasingly hot summers or not? Must I endure warmer summers because Pepi in Alaska is getting cold toes in the winter time? And what about all the other unknown factors such as environmental ones that exclude wheat-belt productivity calculations? Etc.

 

Hopefully just someone who’s posts are based on evidence and facts as opposed to subjective wants and unsubstantiated opinions.

The old are unduly affected by heat and cold. Not just heat.

Right. It takes far more inputs of energy to survive suboptimal moderate cool temps than even extreme hot temps. It’s just how humans are put together.

Sure there is a difference between all cause mortality related to temp and simple heat stroke vs. hypothermia deaths. I prefer all cause mortality as a measure because then you are accounting for all effects including cardiovascular events induced by temps etc. I report on both types of studies because I find it interesting they are in agreement whether we use direct or indirect causes. When actual data is used, it doesn’t matter if we look at just direct effects or include indirect effects on cardiovascular and infectious disease, more people die when it’s colder than when it’s hotter. By orders of magnitude.

Yes, because deaths due to extreme temps are only a tiny fraction of temp related deaths. That was addressed in the second study in my original post.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext

The CDC study you link to above was the sixth study in my original post.

Yes, the National Weather Service uses media reports, not raw data to come up with the 4 to 1 number. From your study:

I’m not particularly swayed by counting the number of times media reports on the dangers of heat. I’d rather go with actual peer reviewed studies that look at actual data.

The study above you link to is not a study of temp related deaths. It’s a paper examining the different data sets used in actual studies. From your link:

As the NWS service relies on counting stories in media on events I would shy away from any conclusions based on that methodology.

With massive amounts of energy inputs from renewable agriculture based calories and fossil fuels. I can survive all upper temp limits here with zero or nearly zero additional energy inputs.

And cold. The aged are more susceptible to cold related mortality than younger adults as well. Remember the much higher death rate of cardiovascular events in the cold than the heat from my cited studies? Cardiovascular events are mostly in the older demographics.

Are you saying we should stop warming that saves lives so some people can have cooler more comfortable summers? I guess my answer to that is life has more value than personal subjective comforts.

We should consider ALL factors, including wheat belt productivity. Including human temp related mortality. Including downstream effects. My posts are an attempt to get folks to use FACTS in those analyses instead of unsubstantiated (incorrect) opinions. I’m not trying to tell anyone what to do. I’m just here to try to keep the discussions based at least a little bit on evidence. I see no point in fabricating policy on climate change based on unsubstantiated opinions and opinions in direct conflict with evidence produced through application of the scientific method.

Claims that humans just aren’t adapted to warmer temps than today just flies in the face of all known evidence. Thus my post on the subject containing evidence. I know the evidence conflicts with the common narrative. But yeh, the majority (or the most powerful minority) will get their way no matter what the evidence is. It’s obvious a powerful minority has convinced the general public humans are not adapted to warmer temps. That’s quite an accomplishment as there is no evidence for that position. There is nothing I can do but point out the actual evidence, as inconvenient as that evidence may be.

 

Yes but as they get very old heat seems to affect them more.

In Australia, 'maximum operational demand' occurs in summer, except in Tasmania. I suppose if you include food (caloric intake) then that might be different. I imagine it's the opposite in the US with the cold winters and the more robust heating that is needed.

Actually, one could also argue it's a matter of opinion and perspective and motivation. Otherwise everybody would have the same data and say the same thing. Would you have the exact same fascination with this data if you weren't a farmer and it happened to be that excess deaths occurred during the hot season?

More temperature-attributable deaths were caused by cold (7·29%, 7·02–7·49) than by heat (0·42%, 0·39–0·44).

You know what, I think that's worded poorly. I would say "associated with" cold and heat.

Sorry missed that. I was posting on my phone - and still am. Sorry. My $2,500 laptop has a precarious power input so I can't plug it into my monitor anymore. It's fine for work but I'm not touching it for much else until I can get it fixed.

This does limit my ability to scan everything with these type of posts.

(Unfortunately if you put something in quotes I can't see it without scrolling up to that post and I've done this process at least 20 times so I'll just leave it ... Perhaps if you're italisize that will save me doing that. But I take your point )

I'm not saying that. And I am sure many would be cautious, including you and I to advocate reducing the speed limits in the US to reduce the traumatic and very directly attributable deaths (and many many more severe injuries) due to road accidents. I simply made it personal because I don't want to shy away from the argument. I think my argument is a good one. If we are warming the planet (since it effects everybody) then everybody should get to have say - not just one set of statistics and one opinion.

And what about the statistical effect of discomfort? I'm serious. If people are uncomfortable they are more likely to do stupid things and make mistakes and be more sensitive to stressors - and this absolutely will statistically increase their likelihood of injury & death - as well as their capacity to harm others. Marginally, but it certainly will add up to real numbers over a population of hundreds of millions.

And it's worth noting that. And it's definitely worth factoring in studies such as the Lancet when we calculate the effects of climate change. Obviously the climate change advocacy groups don't factor these in as much as they could and just look at the negatives! I actually really appreciate these conversations because your comebacks are pretty good and it makes me think - hard.

Ok, I'm tired so here's my final point. Isn't it strange it with the move into colder climates (notwithstanding Greeks and Italians) that humans didn't grow back all their hair? Lol. Perhaps we did adapt.

 

@557 if you look at my last post, in the middle is a bunch of text of mine that I didn't quote properly so it looks like it's your quote. Just saying

Edit: ok, I've pulled it out and improved it slightly. You said:

Well, I think all the data points are compelling. It is a reality. We've had this argument before: analogously, there's a lot of violence around the world and violence in places that we don't want to go or even know about, and we don't hear about that every day. But if someone comes into our local environment and commits a murder it has a more notable importance to that community. It is not to say that the other murders are not important but proportionately the murders close to home might be. So if a huge freeze comes through Texas and hundreds of people die of cold exposure then that might mean more to those locals - and indeed to Americans than the unreported deaths that happen every winter due to it being winter. Not that it undermines the latter. I simply think if someone's kid freezes to death the impact is far more significant than an old or sick relative passing on during winter. Having said that I have appreciated these posts of yours because it is thought provoking and it does make one think at additional layers beyond sensationalism. But I like all the data. In turn with my posts I'm trying to also give you a different line of thought. Let all impacts be examined.

Looking at the groundswell of excess deaths many of which are likely to happen anyway (the deaths), we still don't know how much increasing the temperature will reduce the cold-related deaths? Perhaps the larger proportion of those deaths might related to the cold season rather than the cold - or they could be related to people having seasonal depression, or any other billion factors related to it being winter. So it's speculation isn't it? Your conclusion is not necessarily the same conclusion and is actually much more far-reaching than the conclusions of the paper. For example: 'further research is needed to clarify how much of the excess mortality related to each component is preventable'. From your Lancet citation. I agree with this.

 

Are you sure? I’m open to evidence that’s the case. Here’s some evidence to the contrary. Lisbon has a Mediterranean climate. Short mild winters and long hot summers. And cold attributable deaths in the aged surpass heat related. Even with short mild winters and long, hot summers

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8040763/


In general, the adverse effects of cold and hot temperatures on mortality were greater in the older age groups, presenting a higher risk during the winter season. We found that, for all ages, 10.7% (95% CI: 9.3–12.1%) deaths were attributed to cold temperatures in the winter, and mostly due to moderately cold temperatures, 7.0% (95% CI: 6.2–7.8%), against extremely cold temperatures, 1.4% (95% CI: 0.9–1.8%). When stratified by age, people aged 85+ years were more burdened by cold temperatures (13.8%, 95% CI: 11.5–16.0%).
——-
As with cold temperatures, people aged 85+ years are the most vulnerable age group to heat, 8.4% (95% CI: 3.9%, 2.7%)



In a warm climate 13.8% of temperature attributable deaths were from cold while only 8.4% were from heat in the aged over 85. And the hot period of time far exceeds the colder season.

I suspect this is another case where the popular narrative from media doesn’t align with the evidence. We’ve heard about heat deaths over and over in the media but cold related deaths, especially moderate cold, very rarely. Science paints a totally different picture than journalists with agendas.

I doubt the energy needed for survival in Australia is greater in summer. Again I’m open to evidence. People may enjoy their coal powered AC units, but here’s a breakdown of energy use for heating vs cooling in Australia.


Only 12% of energy used is for cooling and 88% for heating on the country average. A great deal of your hot areas are also very low humidity, so heat would be very survivable, even extreme heat. I don’t know about your coastal and “rainforest” areas. Does wet bulb temp ever approach un-survivable ranges without energy inputs in those areas? If so, it would be statistically insignificant areas in size and populations living there.

The problem is frequency of reporting isn’t really meaningful data. It’s too biased. The NWS “study” isn’t a study. I’ve never seen anything peer reviewed, it’s essentially a count of how many times journalists report on heat deaths vs cold deaths.

I’m not aware of any actual data or study that conflicts with what I’ve posted. The closest thing is tabulations of how often media reports on heat deaths (usually in relation to AGW reporting) while completing ignoring the cold side of the equation. That’s what the National Weather Service claim is based on.

Interesting question about my occupation. I spent a bit of time pondering that today.

My fascination with facts and evidence is unrelated to my occupation. I’ve been like this since I was a kid. I’ve always had to know “why” and “how” and “what does this mean in reality” when I’ve seen new things or new ideas. When you ask those questions you often find out the original bit of information was incorrect or very incomplete.

That's how I came upon the research I’ve posted here. When I started asking questions about why media reports on heat deaths etc. from AGW didn’t jive with my formal knowledge of biology and my practical knowledge of how human and other mammalian physiology relates to temperature I started searching for peer reviewed studies that could clarify things and rectify the discrepancy between my experience and education and media narratives this stuff is what exists. It turns out the overwhelming majority (nearly 100% as far as I can tell) happens to agree with biological facts I’ve learned and not with the narrative.

As far as me being in agriculture, it certainly has an influence on what I’m “allowed” to believe. It means I can’t believe BS. The average person can believe things like humans aren’t adapted to warmer weather/climate without consequences. It’s different for me. I know that if I’m out in the hills chasing cows on an ATV or horse and I break my legs and nobody finds me for some time (no cell service ) if it’s 105°F I’m probably going to survive. If it’s under 60°F my chances are much lower, and at 0° F they aren’t good at all. Every time I adjust a bovine feed ration for temperature, I’m reminded it’s not just humans. Cattle must consume massive amounts of energy to survive cold. Not so (to the same extent) with heat. If it weren’t for human ability to mitigate cold with fossil fuels and construction etc. we would be the same, needing massive caloric intakes to just survive It’s just basic physics, really. But it all conflicts with the common narrative. As this stuff actually impacts me, I can’t believe BS. It would bankrupt me at the least and kill me at worst.

Same goes for the agronomic side of the equation. If I subscribed to the common narrative of AGW activists I couldn’t make a living in agriculture. I have to follow evidence. It’s easier to believe BS when doing so doesn’t directly impact your life.

The study design does a pretty good job controlling for other variables. I see your point. When media reports on heat related deaths they shouldn’t claim deaths are attributed to or caused by climate change or even high temps. They should report there were temperature associated deaths. Fair for the goose, fair for the gander.

I post 99% on my phone. I know the struggles. I usually keep one tab open for typing and one tab open with the full text of post I’m responding to. Then it’s just bouncing back and forth, not endless scrolling.

I’ll try to remember to italicize. Habits are hard to break though. LOL

I agree what you personal experience is easy to project onto the rest of the planet. You seem to dislike being uncomfortably warm. I certainly dislike being cold. It’s difficult being objective. That’s why I prefer looking at global studies as much as possible. If AGW is a global problem we need to look at global impacts, not what we subjectively prefer.

Yes, all impacts need to be examined. Unfortunately the public is completely unaware of many impacts. I consider myself to be above average informed and I just figured the meat of this heat vs. cold thing out a few years ago. We can’t just read a journalist’s opinions and accept what they print. We have to continue to think things through and learn more. The idea there is a consensus on the greenhouse effect and CO2 etc. and that means all other aspects of climate change are “settled” or fully understood is dangerous. Hell, most people are completely unaware that in many cases AGW is driven more by other anthropogenic activities than CO2 emissions. This means solutions are proposed that can never solve the actual problems. We absolutely must consider more impacts. Knowledge is power. But I’ve said many times, there seems to be an inverse correlation between passion for AGW activism and actual factual knowledge of the subject. Again, such folks have been led to fear a thing they don’t understand.

The one global scale study in Lancet demonstrated as temps have increased, net mortality related to suboptimal temps has decreased.

Yes, we should study mortality prevention further. But the study is very clear, when temps are lower, more people die of all causes, and when temps are higher, less people die of all causes. That’s my point. That humans are adapted to higher temps than we see today. It’s just a biological fact with no evidence to the contrary.

We may not like that overwhelming evidence because it conflicts with preconceived ideas, but that doesn’t change reality. And basing decisions about scientific matters on reality is the only way. You can’t jump off a 50 story building and expect to survive just because you don’t accept gravity exists or don’t like the fact it exists.

I hear you. It’s kind of hard to compare “stopping” AGW based on human mortality to decreasing speed limits though. Stopping AGW would cost lives related to temp whereas lowering speed limits would save lives. Both have “costs” in less convenience to society however. I’d certainly agree on that.

And certainly we should have more than one “opinion”. I think one opinion should be fact based, not emotion (media) driven. That’s why I post this stuff. So there can be more than one view and so that one can be evidence based, not just unsubstantiated opinion.

 

I agree discomfort would certainly affect mortality through accidents and “state of mind”, but discomfort from warm temps or cold temps? Since more people suffer debilitating effects from cold, shouldn’t they have equal or more weight?

As we are looking at all cause mortality in some of these studies, I’m certain accidents etc. from discomfort are well accounted for. That’s the beauty of using all cause mortality. If warm weather made people so uncomfortable they do dangerous or clumsy things and die, it’s baked into the cake. Just like the same effects from colder than optimal temps. And when we account for all that, actual studies show cooler than optimal has the largest negative effect on mortality by far.

Climate change advocacy groups don’t dare include this information. Climate change mitigation is and has been sold with fear based marketing. Much of the fear of warming climate would dissipate if the average person was routinely exposed to this kind of information. That would be devastating, as it’s getting difficult to keep people engaged, even with a one sided narrative.

The most unfortunate aspect of all this is that credibility of environmentalism in general suffers. I believe a more balanced narrative on the environment/AGW would pay off in the long run if improving the environment is the goal.

Thanks for questioning my posts. It’s important to question all information.

I suspect our intelligence driven ability to make clothes, shelter, and use energy sources for heat short circuited the selective pressure necessary to revert back to hair for warmth. Also, being (relatively) hairless would be advantageous from a pest/parasite perspective. It’s protective from energy loss associated with such pests, but more importantly prevents infectious diseases spread by those pests. We had enough problems with those things without hair! If we hadn’t developed intelligence sufficient to thrive without hair, it would have never been “lost” to begin with.

 

And nothing will be done about the issues because dems dont possess the ability to come to the table in good faith and actually propose solutions.

 

They don’t even know what the problems are. Any proposed solution would be incorrect because they haven’t yet identified the problems.

And solving any problem takes power or potential power from politicians. That can never be allowed to happen. The “problem” of climate is the heart of many political factions. If any problem were to be solved, a fatal blow would be dealt to those entities.

 

So true, I'm actually reading an intriguing book, The Wizard and the Prophet. It's a book about competing environmental philosophical theories created by William Vogt and Norman Borlaug. Vogt was the minimalist view, quit growing the population because the population's needs are killing the environment and land. This would eventually lead to extinction of our species like most species before us. This also bled over to the affluential and even Hitler, using this view to promote racism, eliminate the "lesser" which would allow less of earth's resources to be used.

Borlaug's view was scientific innovation could get us out of the world's resource issues we will eventually face, and the answer is wealth to fund research. Intriguing arguments that are polar opposite, yet both are revered, and the middle ground is nonexistent.

One thing is for sure, the quest for power and control has always existed and continues to compete with true scientific advancement. Mainly because the affluent loves the power and money and that comes easily with the green movement. We see this daily with the Global Warming community, its loudest proponents were mere politicians who have gained wealth beyond imagination, and the affluent is making billions annually on fear mongering global warming. Interestingly the environment has been a major money grab by the rich since the 1940's, which of course bled over to the affluent using politics to ensure the paydays. It originally was conservatives that championed environmental causes, as late as 1970s, you had National Collegiate Democrat Society protesting Earth Day. Now that has moved to a progressive movement and will eventually move again. The Wizard and the Prophet philosophies have power to this day and will never allow any meeting in the middle, only near extinction can do this, as has always been the case. The scariest thing to me is who is making the most money off save the environment initiatives today, China!

 

It has been 47 whole years? Wow, considering the earth is billions of years old that data is not worth considering.

 

Interesting post. Sounds like a thought provoking book.

I guess I’m a bit in the middle except I’m not interested in depopulation. I believe affluence (moving third world economies to first world) is the path to stabilizing global population. And yes, technology and energy (from whatever source) is how to do that I believe.

Yes, China has figured out how our climate nuttery can benefit them. And many not only don’t care, but actively support it.