Climate Change is Killing People: 37% of All Heat-Related Deaths Are Directly Attributable to Manmade Climate Change (accuse, revolution)

[Aussiehoff]

Originally Posted by Elliott_CA

For projected future deaths, yes. For current deaths, no. "Here, we use empirical data from 732 locations in 43 countries"

Estimates are not empirical data...

Surprising that this needs to be pointed out.

[303Guy]

Originally Posted by FuriousMaximum

Climate change is about as BS as cryptocurrency...

The problem I have with this is that folks keep on saying this but produce no evidence in support. Sow us the science for heavens sake.

[Elliott_CA]

Originally Posted by Aussiehoff

Estimates are not empirical data...

Surprising that this needs to be pointed out.

I don't understand your point. Analysts in every field of study use empirical data to generate estimates, then use statistical tools to calculate the confidence level. Basic math and science.

[Elliott_CA]

Originally Posted by 303Guy

The problem I have with this is that folks keep on saying this but produce no evidence in support. Sow us the science for heavens sake.

The climate deniers have two approaches:


1) Avoid science and make appeals to emotion or "common sense."
2) Use highly cherry-picked data and pseudo-science. If it sounds science-y then they know the target audience will buy it without questioning it.

[Freak80]

Originally Posted by 303Guy

The problem I have with this is that folks keep on saying this but produce no evidence in support. Sow us the science for heavens sake.

Indeed.

If there is evidence to refute human-caused global warming, then why aren’t the skeptics presenting such evidence to the scientific community? Why waste one’s time on an Internet forum? Surely, winning a Nobel Prize is worth the effort, no?

[Corrie22]

because you can't prove a negative

[Elliott_CA]

Originally Posted by Corrie22

because you can't prove a negative

Sure you can. Science uses the "null hypothesis" (Google it) as a cornerstone of testing results.

Example, null hypothesis (called H0): H0 = The world is flat. Now examine tons of evidence that proves H0 is wrong.

[Freak80]

Originally Posted by Corrie22

because you can't prove a negative

Yes you can.

In the case of AGW, just prove that CO2 does not absorb infrared heat, and you disprove AGW.

One way to do this: put two gas mixtures in two separate containers under an infrared heat lamp. Put lots of CO2 in one, and just ordinary air in the other. If the CO2 rich mixture doesn’t heat up faster, then you can show AGW is false.

Obviously, make sure both gas mixtures are getting the same amount of infrared heat. No cheating!

[Freak80]

An experiment you can do at home:


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge0jhY...ture=emb_title

[paracord]

Ohhhhh nooooo!

37%???

Quick, government, take my money! "Fix" this problem!