Report: 300,000 Die Every Year From Climate Change

I get to be the first to say LMAO.

International Organization for Migration, an intergovernmental organization funded by 125 countries to the tune of $1 billion a year, claims that climate change will produce 200 million refugees by 2050.

I'll tell them the oceans are being dried out by chicken ranchers for half that price.

From what I've seen of Stephen Chu so far, he's playing with a full deck plus a joker added as a wild card.

"Let the ill-informed comments and ad hominem attacks begin!"

Okay, you asked for it: You're a moron who's drinking the Kool-Aid. How's that?

I don't know, but I think we should start blaming stupidity on climate change.

We need to think critically about this. Climate change is and always will be. Humans have no control.
The sad thing is that scientists will be seen as idiots when the earth cools.The sun's changing all the time but no one seems to think it is that important to our climate.
We have to educate ourselves and everyone we know.
The governments of the world have more important things to deal with and our money is being wasted.
THAT IS THE CRISIS!
Check out all the links to this website before you comment
www.friendsofscience.org

What about all the chemical/biological weapons dumped into the oceans after WWII that were stockpiled and never used?

Their cases were expected to last 50 years before they corroded thru and now is about the time when all of those nasty chemicals start entering the oceans.

Maybe this whole global warming craze is to take our eyes off the real problem that may kill us all.

Then again with billions now using crude oil and burning it which is using more oxygen than Earth can replace....yeah that's a problem too.

Took man 100 years to use up half the worlds crude oil. It will only take 20 to use up the last half given Earths population now...especially with an Industrialized China and India.

We're a virus consuming the planet and the planet can not replace what we are using up.

Lol I don't get why people are worried about "the planet". Just so you know, whatever happens with global warming, the planet will be fine, its just the people and some animals that may be completely screwed. Good old mother earth will prevail.

The good news is that as the ridiculous proclamations continue to leave the realm of science and keep moving further and further towards science fiction, people will finally realize this is a sham. They pulled an interesting number out of their, er uh, the air. Why didn't they just say, "300,000,000 every year?" Or why not 1,000,000,000? You want ad hominems? Okay, they're idiots.

The amusing thing that they fail to mention is that every past scientific study indicates that mortality and morbidity is higher in colder periods than warm periods. I suspect they looked at increased potential deaths due to global warming and failed to look at increased survival due to "less cold." So I'll just make up a BS number like they did. 600,000 saved each year due to "less cold." My made up 600,000 trumps their bogus 300,000 for a net benefit of 300,000.

And of course, many of these deaths will attributable to decreased food production thanks to global warming…..

"...farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually."

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.”

....warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

Wait a minute, those quotes are from Newsweek, The Cooling World, 28 April, 1975!

Hmmm. They said we were going to starve because of the cooling and now they say we are going to starve because of the warming, yet food production has increased despite their ridiculous claims in either case. At least they are consistent. Consistently wrong.

I don't doubt global warming is largely caused by human factors, and I think its appalling that people should die because they lack life saving aid. But historically the earth has supported the most amount of life in its warmest periods. There use to be temperate forests above the arctic circle and that's accounting for continental drift. The more the sea rises the better convection works keeping the whole planet more steady and uniform even if the total sum is warmer. Most of that warmth will go to ware its needed most to make the land habitable, the polar regions. Yes people will have to move but change is nothing new to the world some creatures will adapt and thrive others will move and some will perish but there is more potential for life on a warmer earth.

Brings back memories of Sam Kinison, your starving to death in a desert?...it's a desert! move to where the food is!!

Stuart Fox:

I'd like to ask you if the picture you chose for this article has any association whatsoever with any of the reports you're citing? If so, could you please explain its relevance? That is, could you explain the geological history of the desert pictured above so that we have a clear idea of how the theoretical anthropogenic warming has affected this region of Turkmenistan?

If this picture in fact has no relevance to the reports being cited, then I'm afraid you peddling fear of the worst kind; and I ask that you and your publication take an honest approach instead of trying to sway your readership with nonsensical fear mongering. This is poor journalism at best, and unethical at worst.

Now to the text:

"Assuming both the GHF report and the MIT study are accurate, that means even if governments do all they can to reverse climate change and its effects right now, food prices could still rise by twenty percent over the next twenty years.

Underscoring these reports is a recent memo by twenty Nobel Prize winners urging governments to take the action needed to limit temperature change to a two percent increase over pre-industrial levels. According to the report, that would require a cut of carbon emissions by five to forty percent below 1990 levels by 2020."

At least you're honest enough suppose that these reports might be flawed. The language "...could rise by twenty percent..." and "...that would require a cut of carbon emissions by five to forty percent [a factor of 8??] below 1990 levels by 2020..." indicate to me that these "scientists" who authored the reports do not have a very clear idea of what their own predictions might require. That speaks volumes about what kind of "science" this is - junk science.

"Let the ill-informed comments and ...begin!"
Ill-informed indeed. What lo-end flatulence is that? Talk about self-inflicted greenhouse gas!

No one questions that there was some warming for about 20 years or so. The question is whether it was anthropogenic or not. Many high level climate scientists, no doubt ill-informed, say the anthropogenic part was all groundless hype. Including one of the fathers of climatology.

Hadcrut data from the last 2 years shows a global cooling trend. Mars was also warming.

Gee, I wonder where heat comes from anyway? Oh right! The sun! Why didn't these idiot AGW (anthro global warm) pundits figure that out before!?

A period of accented solar activity just happened to be going on at the same time as all the warming. And now that activity has ceased - as evident by last summers complete halt in sun storms during August - temperatures are trending back to normal and below normal. So much so that some hyper stupid 'experts' are now predicting the imminent ice age!

We now know we can certainly trust the unbiased PopSci 'journalist' preachers to get on that bandwagon as soon as it picks up sensationalist speed!

So it looks like the PopSci AGW freaks have got on the 'consensus science' bandwagon at full speed and while being themselves severely ill-informed consider that state to belong only to others!

So much for unbiased journalism.

Nobel winners getting in on the action? Well ya don't say! But seeing as the Nobel committee chose assassin and terrorist Yasar Arafath for a peace prize along with politically motivated Al Gorey - well we all know what to think about Nobel idiocy.

First, the scientific community has never lobbied for change with the intent of holding society back, and that atmospheric scientists were right about acid rain and the ozone hole. They warned us, and they're 2 for 2. The scientists told us we needed to stop using CFC's and we did, and the businesses said it would be super expensive and the science was junk, but we did it and now the ozone hole is shrinking. The coal plants whined about installing scrubbers, but my electric bills are all right, and the forests and lakes are less acidic now. See a pattern?

Second, realize that the point of all this global warming hoopla is simple: we should stop burning fossil fuels. Yet there's hundreds of other good reasons not to burn the stuff, ranging from mercury in our fisheries, to ground level ozone in our cities, to money going to Al Qaeda, to dead coal miners in West Virginia, to the fact that most of our fertilizers come from natural gas, and many of our lifesaving medicines and plastics come from petroleum. Yet there's only one reason to keep burning the stuff; it's cheap (for now).

The majority of Americans have had enough, and realize that putting up solar panels, insulating their homes, and purchasing energy-efficient appliances are good ideas all around, and so that's what we're going to do. Whether we're 100% sure that it will save us from rising sea levels and killer hurricanes is not really the point anymore.

"Second, realize that the point of all this global warming hoopla is simple: we should stop burning fossil fuels. "

I admire your honesty, EParker. At least you admit that the "hoopla", or lie as I call it, is just a cover to attack the coal, oil and gas industries. Unfortunately, I think you have a limited understanding of both the scope of the problem of replacing these energy sources and the potential and cost of the alternatives. I would suggest that a better understanding of the issue would find you proposing nuclear energy instead, but that's probably not environmentalist enough for you.

The reality is that solar and wind do not have the energy density to compete with fossil fuels and nuclear. The cost of transmission infrastructure for wind is considerably higher than you may realize, and the cost and toxicity of manufacturing PV cells does not enter your argument at all. Thermal solar suffers from the same transmission issues as wind energy. This is not to say that those sources don't have a place in the country's portfolio of energy sources, but they are not the holy grail that you're proposing.

Neither are carbon taxes, or cap and trade if you prefer to call it that. This scheme being proposed and pushed through Congress will increase energy costs, which will increase the cost of everything, since energy is required for nearly all things we use and consume. It's required to produce food, shelter, medicines, consumer goods and even to go to work. When you increase its cost, you increase the cost of living directly, at a nearly 1:1 correlation.

You might not have noticed that the increase in your electric bill went up when your CFC's were replaced, but you're going to notice a 10-20% increase in your cost of living, especially when you don't see a corresponding increase in your income. Fortunately, it seems that cooler heads are prevailing in Congress and Obama is not going to get the disaster he'd hoped for. He'll have to print more money to buy his other programs; the Chinese aren't going to loan him anymore.

I would have to agree with most of the comments I have seen here so far. AGW is a scam, the earth isnt warming it is coolling. Ironically with the solar cycle that AGW nuts claim has minimal effect on our climate. LOL!!!!!!!! BTW EParker the ozone hole is not shrinking. I can link you the data if you want. That was one of the biggest scams the world has ever seen. The hole has actually grown, despite the fact that it should be none existant if cfc's were to blame like they thought.

Now on to "green tech". There is nothing "green" about green tech. Ethanol actually has a 2 fold draw back.( the 3rd is still in the air at this point)For 1 it actually takes more energy to make then you get back from it when you burn it. 2 it takes corn out of the market driving up the price of food. Solar is a joke. If you put in enough solar panels to provide all your own power for your average home they will pay for themselves in like 85 years. Now here is the important part. They are only good for around 25 years. Hence they never pay for themselves EVER!!!!! That is only on the cost side not to mention they cant hold their own weight even against a little gas powered generator you probably have in the garage. Wind, LOL what a joke, Im not even going to comment further on that subject.

The point I am trying to make here is the obvious one. We are not even close to having the ability to have the green dream. We dont live in startrek times. Maybe one day these will all be viable options, but that time is not now or anytime soon.

As usual, WUWT has the best response to this "report"; I found it quite entertaining.

www.wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/30/u-n-s-global-warming300000-deaths-a-year-report-kofi-implies-close-enough-for-government-work/

From ridicule of people who might think it reasonable to have 100.0000000000% reliability of the CERN collider to packaging this pseudo science it seems that Popular Science is more interested in increasing readership than maintaining science based reporting.

It is sad that this magazine does not strike a more balanced tone surrounding scientific issues. It is one thing to tout the latest achievements and gloss over the problems, it is quite another to display pseudo science as fact and to ridicule those with reasonable questions.

It seems that this magazine by it's bent on seeking popularity is promoting one of the greatest sins of science, that of being a barrier to rational thought.

200,000,000 refugees by 2050 = 5,000,000 per year for 40 years.

$1,000,000,000 budget per year = $500 per refugee.

$500 = more than enough to relocate a 3rd world refugee.

Why are they funding this group at a rate that could solve the problem?

Also, take into account that these numbers are always high (say 200 million so that won't happen so that they at least get funding for the 100 million they will have, and when the prophecies end up falling short, take credit for it with your "preventitive programs").

Must be getting desperate over there at the Al Gore compound. Facts don't gibe so they need new predictions.

Okay, since this has become a one-sided post-fest, I'll just drop in to say to anyone checking out this article -- the majority of opinions posted here do not represent the majority view of scientists involved in climate studies. Yeah, in addition to the 20 Nobelists, you can count over 70 percent of scientists involved in the study of Earth's climate as "AGW Kool-Aid Drinkers," as so many of the posters here would label them. Seriously, do you want to gamble on the future of our civilization that most scientists are wrong, and the likes of Michael "Savage" Weiner and Rush Limbaugh are right? Because you're basically hearing their talking points repeated here by so-called independent thinkers who believe the jury's still out on human influence on the climate.

Personally, I think it might be a good idea to work on alternatives means of producing energy to burning ancient and unrenewable goop that comes out of the ground, especially when the majority of it seems to be in places where the populace doesn't like Western energy hogs. Human influenced global warming, which by this point is approaching evolution in its level of legitimacy, only adds to the reasons we need to make a few sacrifices now to secure the future. If you want to argue that Popsci has taken a political stand in supporting the theory of "AGW," then you better be ready to charge the same thing to Scientific American, Science, Nature, and virtually every other serious scientific publication. They aren't censoring anyone -- it's just that the occasional anecdote supposedly casting doubt on our impact of the climate does not outweigh the vast amount of empirical data and computer models that do show a human influence on the warming planet. Given the rapid response of many of these same posters to any article on this website pertaining to global warming, I hope you'll forgive the cynic in me if I wonder what percentage are paid to use forums such as these to cast doubt on any responsibility the fossil fuel industry may have on our current predicament. They certainly represent a dispraportionate share of the readers and contributors to the scientific discourse of this subject.

For my part, I'd like to bank on the possiblity that the majority of climate scientists are right, just in case. I have a child of my own, and I do intend to be around for several more decades, so I'd like to see a world that doesn't have to deal with the worst effects of global warming as I grow older. Our economy can survive, and even thrive, when we support innovative technologies that don't rely on fossil fuels to provide the energy our civilization needs. Our civilization may not survive if the majority of scientists are right, and we don't change our ways.

Mike_R:

"Because you're basically hearing their talking points repeated here by so-called independent thinkers who believe the jury's still out on human influence on the climate."

Sorry, I'm not a sheep who believes everything he's told. Scientists just thirty years ago told us we were headed for an ice age. That prediction failed, as are the predictions that AGW theory has made. The facts simply are not on your side; instead, your theory is dependent on computer models whose algorithms are withheld and which are fed data which is in some cases suspect.

"Personally, I think it might be a good idea to work on alternatives means of producing energy to burning ancient and unrenewable goop that comes out of the ground, especially when the majority of it seems to be in places where the populace doesn't like Western energy hogs."

Then you must be pro-nuclear since that's an already well-developed energy technology with the energy density and cost per kwh that far and away leaves PV, solar thermal and wind in the dust.

"They aren't censoring anyone -- it's just that the occasional anecdote supposedly casting doubt on our impact of the climate does not outweigh the vast amount of empirical data and computer models that do show a human influence on the warming planet."

I've never claimed censorship. I will claim that the media, especially popular media, is guilty of sensationalism as the picture accompanying this article clearly demonstrates. You'll note that Stuart Fox has neither changed nor defended his choice of imagery to go along with a report with no scientific basis (as admitted by Kofi Annan himself). Popular media also regularly fails to give equal time to critics of AGW theory, instead frequently towing the line by labeling scientists who disagree with AGW's assumptions as crackpots. You appear guilty of the same.

"I hope you'll forgive the cynic in me if I wonder what percentage are paid to use forums such as these to cast doubt on any responsibility the fossil fuel industry may have on our current predicament."

Oh I wish! If I had $5 for every time I've had to correct some fool about the basic facts of energy production, economics, the greenhouse effect or the basic physics, I'd have my lunches paid for the next year. Hell, I'd have just made another $5 off you!

"For my part, I'd like to bank on the possiblity that the majority of climate scientists are right, just in case. I have a child of my own, and I do intend to be around for several more decades, so I'd like to see a world that doesn't have to deal with the worst effects of global warming as I grow older. Our economy can survive, and even thrive, when we support innovative technologies that don't rely on fossil fuels to provide the energy our civilization needs. Our civilization may not survive if the majority of scientists are right, and we don't change our ways."

Fine, bank on fear. But don't mind the rest of us blaming you when our cost of living increases by 10-20% to pay for your fantasy. I have three kids of my own, and since I've actually spent a little time checking, I also know that our planet has been 10 degrees Celsius warmer than it is now, and contained 15 times the CO2 in the atmosphere. What happened? The Cambrian explosion.

So assuming that increased CO2 will create the positive feedback that AGW theory depends on (and actual observations are proving this is false), at worst, we can expect a little less land on the surface and a little more ocean, all while enjoying bumper crops and feeding a growing population. You and Al Gore can go live in a cave and figure it all out - we'll keep the lights on for you.

It's ridiculous to say that our civilization is all of a sudden totally reliant on fossil fuels. Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Paul Revere didn't use coal or oil. So to claim we're all going to die and trade will break down and we'll all be illiterate hunter-gatherers without releasing fossilized CO2 is bonkers.

In the greater scheme of things, the age of fossil fuels is a blink of an eye, so we need to figure out what we're going to do when they run out. And run out they will, unless one of you nuts wants to claim that we're being mislead, and swamps produce coal at the same rate we use it. So what's the debate about? Lincoln, Washington, and Revere were all about making the future better, even if they had to suffer and die to make it that way. So to say, "eh, let the grandkids figure it out" is not only irresponsible, it's un-American. Get with the program.

Mike,

I greatly appreciated your note and views and would like to make a couple of points based upon your comments. Clearly you are a concerned, intelligent individual with your heart in the right place. And, you are able to articulate a decent argument. Perhaps I can clarify a couple of things, and at the very least, seed the slightest amount of doubt in you (or not, but I think it’s worth a try).

First of all I’d like to address: “I hope you'll forgive the cynic in me if I wonder what percentage are paid to use forums such as these to cast doubt on any responsibility the fossil fuel industry may have..” I’ve gotten this note dozens of times and usually receive it from “Princeton Philosophy majors” I’m debating online when they reach complete and total frustration as they run out of three-fold Greenpeace propaganda to rely upon. I can’t speak for everyone on this forum, but I’m a mechanical engineer who has NEVER worked in the oil and gas industry or any part of the energy sector. I’ve been out of engineering for about 13 years, but have 10 years experience designing U.S. Navy ships and I’ve worked in the area of energy/water conservation in office Buildings – I’ve been involved with some good stuff in that area. I’m not a Climate Scientist, but have studied the subject since the early 90’s. It seems that the most “vocal” skeptics I encounter in the area of climate change are usually engineers. Why is that? While it’s generally not good to generalize, here I go...in general, engineers tend to be a skeptical group. I think that’s a good thing and can result in vigorous debate (if the other side actually decides to engage, rather than just throw mud). The other thing is that engineers have to deal with REAL science (physics) applied in the REAL WORLD. Not esoteric, ethereal theory in the netherworld which often resembles junk science. No, that’s for the modelers. Engineers have an amazing ability to smell BS with anything non-scientific that’s “dressed” as science.

As for skeptical Climate scientists and meteorologists, there are plenty, even at places like NASA and NOAA. Specifically you cited “...over 70 percent of scientists involved in the study of Earth's climate”, my question to you is this. How many climate scientists and meteorologists have you talked with re: Climate Science? I’ve spoken with over a dozen, and did not specifically seek out “skeptics”, but I’ve found that there are some who think it’s all nonsense, plenty that think “yes we’re affecting the climate but it’s minimal and not that big of a deal” and some (a relatively small number) that are apocalyptic. In fact THEY represent the fringe. Of course, they make better TV on the 6 o’clock news, especially if articulate. Heck, even Chris Landsea of NOAA quit the IPCC because of their preconceived agendas and politics (http://www.tsaugust.org/Landsea_Letter.htm). He’s not alone. I suspect that most skeptics probably have a good idea how Galileo felt fighting the church. Skeptics are all “deniers”, heretics or shills for the oil/gas lobby. Never mind if they have a winning argument. In fact, the only way to counter them is via name-calling and demonization.

If you are for energy conservation and alternatives I applaud you. Hell, I’m all for that, but for a genuine and worthwhile reason: Energy independence. Not to fight an imaginary boogy-man. As Kstauf has written in several posts, you must be pro-nuke. I certainly hope so, it’s the best way to go. But that is not what this discussion is about. We’re talking about the science of Climate Change and specifically, the nonsense contained in the extremely “non-scientific” paper just released on deaths attributable to climate change. That my friend, is political activism, the very antithesis of science and a complete sham.

All the best...Warmhoax

Why not consider clean coal technology to help reduce emissions?

A lot of people don’t know exactly what clean coal technology is, so I’ll fill you in: it refers not to any one technology, but to an entire suite of advanced technologies.

During the America’s Power Factuality Tour, we’ve been traveling around the country talking to the people who are behind the production of cleaner electricity from coal – including a stop at the Pleasant Prairie Power Plant in Wisconsin. They’ve installed a retrofit system that has reduced nitrogen oxide emissions by 90 percent and sulfur dioxide emissions by 95 percent.

In addition, through a pilot project in partnership with Alstom Power, they’re developing the latest in carbon capture technology. Check out http://sn.im/factuality5 to get the facts on clean coal technology once and for all.

"Underscoring these reports is a recent memo by twenty Nobel Prize winners urging governments to take the action needed to limit temperature change to a two percent increase over pre-industrial levels."

Surely, twenty Nobelists would have specified a temperature scale, to lend some meaning to that sentence.

Bob Stuart

We can change anything.
But we can never change
just one thing.

Nice to see that Exxon is finally going to be paying for the Valdez oil spill. With all the oil riches we have I'm surprised that it's taken so long. Maybe they could send me a bit for my kid's asthma too. Oh yeah, unless I saw Exxon do it, it's not their fault. Breathing fumes is perfectly healthy, higher incidences of lung disease don't prove anything. So we should go back to putting lead in gasoline. Just because people's IQ was dropping, hey that was probably just inner city's people's rampant drug use. What the heck, GW won't really bother rich Americans anyhow. They'll just summer somewhere else or buy a desalination plant for their golf course. Oh, that's right, pretty soon Lake Mead will be overflowing with our improved climate.

As the desert advances in Africa a 100 miles a year, a 100 million acres of land is lost to food production. 1/4 of US farm land have been paved over for roads. Not only is available land for food production disappearing, but the CO2 absorption by plants, and the oxygen production by plants, on these lands have been lost.

Investing in a fuel economy car, rather than driving my dead brother's truck, cuts my CO2 emissions by 4.2 tons a year. I could have put off buying a second used fuel economy vehicle for years by driving that truck. But I would rather help protect the enviroment with how I spend my money, than hurt the enviroment, by driving a vehicle twice as large than I need.

Rather than hold $5,500 dollors in the bank, I would rather invest the money in a white steel roof, with 2 inches of additional hard foam roofing, covering over the aging dark asphalt shingles, on my roof. The investment in the white metal roof will cut my A/C and heating bill in half. The $100 a month savings will reduce my home's CO2 emissions by another 4 tons a year. Plus the new roof will pay for itself in 7 years.

While solar panels may be warrentied only for 20 years, the life span of the average solar panel is unknown. Weather plays a factor. Quality of construction plays a factor. If 40 years from now the 20 solar panels on your roof are only producing 50% of the power the solar panels generated when new, would you scrap the 20 solar panels to replace them with 20 new solar panels? Or would you just add 10 new solar panels over your garage to produce the extra electricity you need?

Ellen

Let protect our enviroment!
http://www.nganhangonline.com

The climate change very fast causes of people, now people must change themself to help the world.
http://tinyarticle.com/Category/285/0/Education.html

thanks a lot dude. Top to bottom informative . superb man. Want to receive more article like this in future keep on posting this work. Many gets benefited

www.AdvanceLoan.net