Saturday, July 07, 2007

Global Warming to kill billions of people

I know this is about a year old, but stuff like this must be re-telled from time to time.

GLOBAL warming is irreversible and billions of people will die over the next century, one of the world's leading climate change scientists claimed


"Much of the tropical land mass will become scrub and desert; before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs that survive will be in the Arctic, where the climate remains tolerable."


This type of stuff is the reason why people like myself take all talk about global warming critically, and why a lot of the public do not think that it is a major issue.

If Billions of people is say, 3 billion. Then this means that every year up till the year 2100, approx 32 million to die every year or 88,000 a day or about 60 deaths per minute.

And you know what that means, 1 person is dying every second because of global warming. I mean....seriously....

14 comments:

Count Iblis said...

"If Billions of people is say, 3 billion. Then this means that every year up till the year 2100, approx 32 million to die every year or 88,000 a day or about 60 deaths per minute.

And you know what that means, 1 person is dying every second because of global warming. I mean....seriously...."

Nonsensical Straw Man argument. Many people may not take Global Warming serious, but then do climate scientist take your research serious? Have you published your results in scientific journals? Have you presened your work at international conferences?

philip said...

My favourite quote is still,

"Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked."

UK Government's chief scientist, Professor Sir David King


And the Warmingistas wonder why we don't take them seriously.

And, Count Iblis demonstrates his grasp of climate science by evading the issue and launching an Ad Hominen attack.

Count Iblis said...

"...and launching an Ad Hominen attack"

Jonathan has been doing research for a while now, and it is therefore not unreasonable to ask about the results. So, where are the peer reviewed papers?

Jonathan Lowe said...

count, it's fine to ask me about the results, however, my own business that I run is taking up way too much time for me to concentrate on a Phd and journal papers (this the reason why I stopped my PhD in the first place).

However, I'm happy to give you the data so you can check my results...or better still, if you are so against it, how about challenging my findings? You can get the data yourself from the BOM.

philip said...

where are the peer reviewed papers?

I come across this magic incantation by the Warmingistas on a regular basis.

Facts/data/evidence are what they are irrespective of whose stamp of approval they get.

Keep up the good work Jonathan. The solar cycle guys say we are heading into another little ice age. We will need unbiased and adjustment free analysis more than ever in the years ahead (since we can't expect this from climate scientists).

Jonathan Lowe said...

another reason is that I have come t believe that it now doesn't matter what proof against global warming one discoveres, even if its as clear as day... it doesn't matter what one proves, you will not doubt the masses of its being.

That is why it has become a religion amongst the many.

The only way one would be able to change the opinion, and even this, would only change the few, would be if the temperature record went down. So no scientific proof, just observation. And even then I can predict the response: something like "it was because we reduced CO2 that the temperature went down"

Thus it is with religion, it's about faith.

Count Iblis said...

Jonathan, I don't think I'm against your results as far as the statistical work is concerned. All I'm saying is that you should write things up.

That wouldn't take very long. You just use your data to derive some "hard results", like e.g. that Australia is warming at a significantly slower rate than the global average.

In the article you only need to give a summary of the methods that you've used.


I'm now writing up a short aticle about results I've obtained. I've worked about two weeks (4 hours per day)on it and I'm almost finished. So it really doesn't take that long...

Jonathan Lowe said...

"that Australia is warming at a significantly slower rate than the global average."

thanks for putting words in my mouth count. In fact I would never say anything of the sort, as you know, but decide to ignore.

I work full time, and do not have 4 hours per day free, and it would be easy to write a report on my findings, but the amount of literature research and reading before would take too long.

Count Iblis said...

No it is not a religion

Even if scientists are confronted with criticisms that they flat out reject, they won't shy away from doing additional tests to investigate this matter in an unbiased way.

Count Iblis said...

Well, there are a lot of climate skeptics, even some in the scientific community. You could just collaborate with someone.

Why wouldn't Prof. Lindzen be interested in your statistical research?

Jonathan Lowe said...

it may well not be a religion with the scientists, but it is with the general public following.

Its a shame that the above linked research would no doubt, be analysing maximum and minimum data only, which coming from a statistician is completely inadequate (and as proven on this blog).

I'm sure Prof. Lindzen would be interested in my research, i might contact him.

Philip said...

Jonathan, you might contact Warwick Hughes. I believe he has published a number of papers.

IMO you have a smoking gun for non-CO2 driving of climate change and it should be published, but it needs someone familiar with the conventions of writing scientific papers. I don't know if they teach that to statisticians :-)

And I commented in another forum that it would take advancing glaciers crushing the outer suburbs of a Kyoto signatory's capital city to finally kill this monster.

John Nicklin said...

If Billions of people is say, 3 billion. Then this means that every year up till the year 2100, approx 32 million to die every year or 88,000 a day or about 60 deaths per minute.

And you know what that means, 1 person is dying every second because of global warming. I mean....seriously....


You also have to add in the other 6 billion that will die in the next 100 years regardless of climate. So we should be seeing 3 people popping off every second.

Jonathan Lowe said...

yes Philip, I wrote a conference paper in spors statistics and did do a year of my PhD, so I am familiar with the way it is written, just dont have the time...but I agree with you, I really should do something about it.