Please state clearly which you think kills more, heat or cold? — Agree to Disagree

Heat.

Can you provide links to dispute the claim that cold kills more than heat? — Agree to Disagree

Yep:

https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Which-Kills-More-People-Extreme-Heat-or-Extreme-Cold

Extreme heat and extreme cold both kill hundreds of people each year in the U.S., but determining a death toll for each is a process subject to large errors. In fact, two major U.S. government agencies that track heat and cold deaths--NOAA and the CDC--differ sharply in their answer to the question of which is the bigger killer.

It goes on from there. But it does involve reading, and a bit of nuance when assessing studies— so feel free to ignore it so you can go on happily with your denial.

Some changes (such as droughts, wildfires, and extreme rainfall) are happening faster than scientists previously assessed.

Mikie, are you saying that sometimes (climate) scientists get it wrong? That their assessment of the speed of change was not correct.

How do we know that they are not wrong about other things? — Agree to Disagree

I’m sure they are. Other scientists will figure out where and how. But I’m not delusional enough to believe I know where they’re wrong or why.

They underestimated the speed of change. No one claimed to have the level of certainty that they do that climate change is happening, and rapidly.

This means climate change is actually worse than expected, btw. You know, that phenomenon that “maybe” is a good thing, as you absurdly and ignorantly suggested?

What gives you the right to deny them the benefits that they have gained. — Agree to Disagree

Next time someone’s house is on fire, we should treat it as a balancing act. Clearly there’s benefits. Who are we to deprive them of heat in winter? The smoldering ashes are a great source of warmth. Maybe they can re-sell the charcoal.

How is it winning exactly if I must spend resources on adaptation when I'd rather spend time on leisure? — Benkei

?

You have a right to think whatever you want.
— frank

Says who? And with what authority? It has always been the case and will always be the case that one does not have the right to think what one likes. If one thinks that all Jews should be exterminated, or that children need introducing to sex by pedophiles. one ought to be locked up, and very likely will be sooner or later.

I have no doubt peddling lies about the climate will be similarly regarded once the effects of climate change begin to bite and the megadeath toll begins to mount. — unenlightened

I probably should have said, "I respect your right to think whatever you like about climate change." Because I do.

It’s worth pointing out that @ChatteringMonkey provided substantive responses to @Agree to Disagree, all of which was ignored in favor of other posts— posts that can be brought into the realm of subjectivity, where anyone can have an opinion.

It’s worth pointing out that ChatteringMonkey provided substantive responses to @Agree to Disagree, all of which was ignored in favor of other posts— posts that can be brought into the realm of subjectivity, where anyone can have an opinion. — Mikie

Again, he hasn't denied climate change. He just doesn't believe there's anything we can do about it, and he believes there will be some benefits from it, which is true.

Let's be civil, ok?

So how do we know that they are not wrong again? — Agree to Disagree

Creationists say the same thing about evolution— especially when it’s shown that scientists were off about some hypothesis— like ideas about what killed the dinosaurs.

Yours is a god-of-the-gaps approach to climate denial, even going so far as using the fact that it’s WORSE than some scientists anticipated as proof that they may be wrong about all of it. Truly pathetic. But also average.

Yours is a god-of-the-gaps approach to climate denial, even going so far as using the fact that it’s WORSE than some scientists anticipated as proof that they may be wrong about all of it. — Mikie

That's not what he said. I'd like you to stop bullying by intentionally misinterpreting. Let's be civil.

Let's be civil. — frank

It is civility and civilisation that are under threat. Civility has to stop at the point where the conditions for its existence are threatened, just as 'freedom' does. Your moral scruples will not save us here, but are themselves out of order. It's a climate emergency, not a climate chat show. Let us resist catastrophe, by any means necessary, even including being a bit rude occasionally.

It is civility and civilisation that are under threat. Civility has to stop at the point where the conditions for its existence are threatened, just as 'freedom' does. Your moral scruples will not save us here, but are themselves out of order. It's a climate emergency, not a climate chat show. Let us resist catastrophe, by any means necessary, even including being a bit rude occasionally. — unenlightened

There is never a time when it's ok to be immoral. Never.

But in an emergency, what is moral changes. When the boat is in danger of overturning, it is moral to restrain the guy rocking the boat. When there is no danger, let him have his fun.

But in an emergency, what is moral changes — unenlightened

The problem for me, is that I don't think I'm smart enough to know when I'm deluding myself. I'm American. I have a heritage of rationalizing crimes because it was supposed to be necessary for survival.

I learned that it's better to die than to believe there are times when evil is ok. I think there are bullies in this thread who are unjustly attacking a person. I should speak up.

For me there are no "facts" that are beyond dispute.
— Agree to Disagree

'Everyone has a right to their own opinions, but not to their own facts' ~ Daniel Patrick Moynihan. — Quixodian

Yes indeed. But, again, pretty standard (ie, average) for a climate denier.

I posted about this a while back under “selective skepticism.” It’s motivated by something else— in this case, propaganda-driven denial; but not always. Sometimes by money or the feeling of superiority/specialness.

In any case, it usually presents as “ah shucks I’m just asking questions and showing a healthy bit of skepticism” and then fairly quickly reduces to “scientists were wrong about the earth being flat” and, eventually, “there are no facts.”

Yes, maybe when I walk out the door I’ll fly away. Maybe. Who knows? Prove it can’t happen— and cite your source!

Yes indeed. But, again, pretty standard (ie, average) for a climate denier. — Mikie

He hasn't denied climate change. I'd like you to stop bullying by intentionally misinterpreting him.

The problem for me, is that I don't think I'm smart enough to know when I'm deluding myself. — frank

But it doesn't stop you telling us how to behave. So it looks like your claim above is one of your delusions.

The problem for me, is that I don't think I'm smart enough to know when I'm deluding myself.
— frank

But it doesn't stop you telling us how to behave. So it looks like your claim above is one of your delusions. — unenlightened

I could be deluded, yes. But if I am, I didn't rationalize that it's ok to hurt people.

I didn't rationalize that it's ok to hurt people. — frank

You appear to be rationalising that your interventions here will not hurt anyone, but you may be very wrong. If Mikie is right, then you are giving aid and comfort to those who for whatever reason are actively preventing people from reaching a consensus that would allow a collective response to a crisis that will cost many lives. A high price for us to pay for your delusion of innocence.

You appear to be rationalising that your interventions here will not hurt anyone, but you may be very wrong. If Mikie is right, then you are giving aid and comfort to those who for whatever reason are actively preventing people from reaching a consensus that would allow a collective response to a crisis that will cost many lives. A high price for us to pay for your delusion of innocence. — unenlightened

By this scenario, intentionally misinterpreting and belittling people is the way we achieve consensus. Do you really believe that?

Yes. We do not discuss flat Earth theory, because it is nonsense, and would prevent us from having sensible conversations. The climate 'debate' is as over as the flat Earth debate, and the smoking/lung cancer connection debate. To give the impression that it is not over will cost lives, and slow down efforts at mitigation.

Yes. We do not discuss flat Earth theory, because it is nonsense, and would prevent us from having sensible conversations. The climate 'debate' is as over as the flat Earth debate, and the smoking/lung cancer connection debate. To give the impression that it is not over will cost lives, and slow down efforts at mitigation. — unenlightened

So how about just walk away? Why mistreat the person? Walking away has the benefit of leaving the door open, should he change his mind and decide you're right. Attacking him just leaves a bad taste in the mouths of all who witness your abuse.

To give the impression that it is not over will cost lives, and slow down efforts at mitigation. — unenlightened

In this case, the person we're talking about has not given the impression that climate change won't cost lives. He hasn't denied climate change.

Can we let that sink in for a moment? He hasn't denied climate change. If you think he has, then you've bought into the words of a bully.

What he has done is express the belief that there isn't any way to stop it. A lot of people feel that way, and they have good reasons for it. If you feel that skepticism about avoidance is unworthy of consideration, then you'll have to exclude the IPCC from your sensible conversations, because they have now shifted to looking at the prospects for adaptation in the various global zones they consider. I linked the link earlier.

I belong to a science and technology group where the consensus has long been that there's no way to avoid climate change. If you came into that community demanding that people reconsider this, they wouldn't attack you as a naive fool. They would just smile. But if one of them did decide to attack you, I would stand up for you and demand that they treat you civilly.

That's all I'm doing here.

So how about just walk away? — frank

You walk away if you want to, but I haven't entirely given up on you. And I haven't given up on the topic either. A lot of people are going to die, more than a few already have died, and a lot of environments are going to die, but we can go on making things worse, or we can start trying to make things less awful. I'm for doing the latter, even if it means being a little bit harsh with people who pretend to a knowledge they do not have.

You understand that "climate denial" is an umbrella term, that should not be taken absolutely literally? From 'its not happening', to 'it's not that bad', to 'there's nothing to be done', to 'it's always happened', to 'it might get colder soon', to 'seasonal change is greater than climate warming' . I mean, really, what is that last one for shit posting? You want us to discuss why that is problematic?

You understand that "climate denial" is an umbrella term, that should not be taken absolutely literally? — unenlightened

I hadn't heard that term before. You're saying it includes people who accept climate change, but don't think there's anything we can do about it? And anyone who expresses that view is shitposting?

This conversation has made me sad. I'll probably not respond further.

I belong to a science and technology group where the consensus has long been that there's no way to avoid climate change. — frank

Spell out that position more clearly because stated like this it's patently absurd.

I hadn't heard that term before. — frank

That explains a lot.

Spell out that position more clearly because stated like this it's patently absurd. — Benkei

They think the challenges to avoiding climate change are insurmountable. They think we'll have to adapt.

That's not any clearer. What challenges specifically Mr "I'm in a vague, no-name science and technology group but I cannot get beyond hand waving at problems and whining about tone"?

The cost of winning an argument is that now they hate you because you made them lose.

Creationists say the same thing about evolution— especially when it’s shown that scientists were off about some hypothesis— like ideas about what killed the dinosaurs.

Yours is a god-of-the-gaps approach to climate denial, even going so far as using the fact that it’s WORSE than some scientists anticipated as proof that they may be wrong about all of it. Truly pathetic. But also average. — Mikie

I am a strong believer in evolution. I have used that belief to try and understand how dangerous global warming is.

Humans evolved in Africa, near Kenya. So humans should be able to tolerate temperatures which are close to the temperatures found in Kenya.
- the average daily low for Kenya's coldest month is 14.7 degrees Celsius
- the average yearly temperature for Kenya is 21.5 degrees Celsius
- the average daily high for Kenya's hottest month is 29.1 degrees Celsius

So Kenya's temperature range is 14.4 degrees Celsius, and the temperature normally varies from warm to quite hot.

Humans evolved in a hot country. Many humans then migrated to other counties, some of them being considerably colder than Kenya.

This is why humans can tolerate heat better than they can tolerate cold.

Humans evolved in Africa, near Kenya. So humans should be able to tolerate temperatures which are close to the temperatures found in Kenya. — Agree to Disagree

This is why humans can tolerate heat better than they can tolerate cold. — Agree to Disagree

I’m not going to simply refute stupid claim after stupid claim. You’re changing the subject — again. If you want to continue, respond to what’s been said so far and stay on topic. Otherwise, I’m not interested in your particular brand of climate denial.

Just a little review of this latest round of climate denial from the person who’s only recently joined the forum and is singularly interested in spreading nonsense about this one issue:

Many people seem to be paranoid about the use of crude oil. Crude oil is very useful for a lot of reasons. — Agree to Disagree

Yeah, that’s it — everyone is just paranoid.

But [climate scientists] have chosen to "hide" the actual temperatures from the public. — Agree to Disagree

Conspiracy.

It is almost like I was questioning your religion. — Agree to Disagree

(Common climate denial accusation— “the church of climate change,” etc)

Do you mean the climate scientists who go on all expenses paid holidays each year (COP) to the worlds top tourist spots to discuss how everyone else should stop flying, etc. — Agree to Disagree

(Common denialist accusation.)

Are the people who live in Moscow “suffering” from global-warming? Or are they having street parties to welcome global-warming? — Agree to Disagree

I believe that there are no solutions that aren't doomed from the start. And many of the proposed solutions will actually make things worse. — Agree to Disagree

(Never talks about why other than it’s cold in sone places and that India and China have a lot of cows so, you know, “good luck with that”. Solid argument.)

Currently sea level is rising by about 3 mm per year. I don't need to worry for about 333 years. — Agree to Disagree

(Wrong— It’s closer to 4mm a year.)

There is not much political will to do things that people don't want (if you live in a democracy). — Agree to Disagree

Wrong — poll after poll show people want their governments to do something.

I believe that it is incorrect to hold those companies responsible for 71% of global emissions. The companies are only supplying what people demand. — Agree to Disagree

Wrong— another myth in defense of industry (no surprise there).

Can you provide links to dispute the claim that cold kills more than heat? — Agree to Disagree

I did — and then no further response about that; subject changed to how because we all evolved from Africa, we can handle the coming heat. :roll:

-----
All the makings of a varsity athlete.

(To those following along, notice how we've already strayed from anything to do with science, where some work actually needs to be done to follow along, into the subjective, flimsy world of "you're mean to me; I'm misunderstood; you call me names; you're not addressing my red herrings") — Mikie

This was just worth repeating.

Still waiting for you to explain what problems exactly are unsurmountable. What "group" are you exactly a member of? Or are you just making things up in the hopes we take your unidentified problems serious?

Still waiting for you to explain what problems exactly are unsurmountable. — Benkei

Here's your answer:–

The cost of winning an argument is that now they hate you because you made them lose. — frank

Some of us have this magical ability to change our minds when we find out we were wrong, and others just get angry. If only they could realise that it was them being wrong that made them lose...