Muslims Call for 'Death to Israel' and 'Death to Jews' in Germany

submitted by [deleted] from rairfoundation.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

Maybe my source is shit, but this Willis Eschenbach opinion piece seems to have gotten a fair amount of attention. Maybe because it's compelling and extensive.

https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/23673/1/FullText.pdf Across all study countries, we find that 37.0% (range 20.5-76.3%) of heat-related deaths can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change, and that increased mortality is evident on every continent

Big fucking whoop dude, who gives extra fucks for heat related deaths. Is this not preventable? A far cry from feedback loops dooming the planet.

https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/weather-related-disasters-increase-over-past-50-years-causing-more-damage-fewer Deaths decreased almost threefold from 1970 to 2019.

What?

It basically doesn't look like a very good source, and it's counter to the science that's out there.

Which Eschenbach chart or image or fact is counter to science?

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

Maybe my source is shit, but this Willis Eschenbach opinion piece seems to have gotten a fair amount of attention. Maybe because it's compelling and extensive.

Does it? Is there any attention outside the career denialists?

Maybe because it's compelling and extensive.

We started this by wanting more science basis to policy.

Big fucking whoop dude, who gives extra fucks for heat related deaths. Is this not preventable? A far cry from feedback loops dooming the planet.

These deaths are attributable to the anthropogenic part of climate change, and they're increasing.

It's relevant because the Eschenbach piece starts with a chart showing decreasing "climate related catastrophes". I note that this is different from "attributable to climate change", which would be the relevant statistic.

What?

Weather related disaster costs are increasing, not decreasing.

Which Eschenbach chart or image or fact is counter to science?

Let's start at the top. The deaths per "climate related disaster" is intentionally misleading. The relevant statistic is "deaths attributable to the anthropogenic part of climate change".

But I suspect that they're all misleading. Watts is a climate science denial website, and Eschenbach has no relevant expertise. There's lots of bad science on the internet. Should we read it all? If we are genuinely interested in what the science is saying we should read scientific sources.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

So we're left with extra heat deaths and extra disaster costs. Big whoop. It's not worth destroying our progress as a human race over. No emergency.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

So we're left with extra heat deaths and extra disaster costs.

The ecosystems collapsing is probably the worst outcome.

25% of all ocean species spend some part of their lifecycle on coral reefs. So the bleaching will affect almost every corner of oceanic productivity.

And every species is a unique scientific resource, with a biochemistry that, if studied, will have some findings that will never be available to humans without them.

So the current rate of extinction estimated at something between a species every few hours to one every few minutes, is a theft from our future that is forever lost.

But i don't understand what using energy sources such as nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal would destroy our progress as a human race.

Can you explain how that would work?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

You know how it would work. They want to stop using fossil fuels immediately.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Not immediately. Just urgently.

But even immediately would mean brownouts or blackouts in some areas. How would even that destroy all the knowledge and technology and health advances that we've made as a human race?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Medicine, fertilizers, consumer goods factories, etc. etc. Basicaly this graph: https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/percent-extreme-poverty.png?resize=720%2C525&ssl=1

These climate alarmists want to flush it all down the toilet for nothing. They won't even consider nuclear.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

These climate alarmists want to flush it all down the toilet

This is the point I'm questioning.

You claim that moving to nuclear and renewables will increase poverty. I think that sounds like Saudi Arabian / Russian propaganda.

What's your evidence?

for nothing.

This is wrong. The ecosystems that are collapsing are irreplaceable. But even the infrastructure, the human displacement, the human health, and the food security are measurable, and worth avoiding.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Oh Jesus. Bad faith. I'm gonna put this one in my win book.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

What?

You've offered no evidence for your claim that moving to nuclear and renewable would increase poverty, and it's certainly not intuitive.

You claim the benefit is nothing, and the benefits are invaluable.

WTF does "Oh Jesus. Bad faith." mean?

Does it mean you've got no evidence to back your claim?