1 edit
@vivify saidYear after year fewer people die from climate events.
Again: year after year records are being broken for heat waves, tornados, wildfires and flooding, with continually rising death tolls. That is clear evidence you can't deny. We are actively experiencing the very climate situations scientists have been warning about.
https://www.facebook.com/bjornlomborg/photos/a.221758208967/10159904544468968/?type=3
Try that one again.
You say more people are dying from heat because of global warming, then you need to acknowledge less people die from the cold. Or have you abandoned that line.
Please confirm.
You're a catastrophist who's cried wolf too many times.
@wajoma saidLMAO. Facebook is your source?
Year after year fewer people die from climate events.
https://www.facebook.com/bjornlomborg/photos/a.221758208967/10159904544468968/?type=3
Try that one again.
You say more people are dying from heat because of global warming, then you need to acknowledge less people die from the cold. Or have you abandoned that line.
Please confirm.
You're a catastrophist who's cried wolf too many times.
Explains so much about how ignorant you are.
3 edits
@vivify saidClimate related deaths have dropped 99% in the last hundred years.
LMAO. Facebook is your source?
Explains so much about how ignorant you are.
Graph from peer reviewed paper in science direct ijit
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157?fbclid=IwAR2_1cfzj8_tobG74PGTqvEI7nXOm2KbyvDLmfIq1Jzk-KEcopGxYqUaWuM
Read it and weep in a puddle of your own catastrophist tears. Try not to raise the sea level too much with all your crying, you're not scaring anyone, anymore.
@metal-brain saidThe statement is true, even if the timeline is arguable. There is no admission of gullibility.
Because she would have to admit she is gullible. The whole reason I asked.
Even among the most gullible, the far-right.
@earl-of-trumps saidDid you even read the fact check?
Not duped at all.
----------------------------------------
https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/news-what-tweet-greta-thunberg-delete-end-world-claim-controversy-explored
"In 2018, Greta shared an article by gritpost.com, in which it was detailed that Harvard University professor James Anderson had warned that humanity might not exist if the use of fossil fuel ...[text shortened]... less we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years.""
---------------------
eco-terrorist.
@vivify saidFurther proof the the far-right reads nothing without putting their disgusting spin on it to inflame their base.
That statement is not saying humanity will end in five years. It refers to scientists warning of a point of no return should the earth's temperature increase by 1.5 degree Celsius.
If that happens, scientists warn climate conditions will be catastrophic for humans and also irreversible. Here's an article from NASA on the matter:
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-d ...[text shortened]... climate change will result in an irreversible chain of events that may lead to humanity's downfall.
@jimmac saidIt's like the right is wishing a dystopia on us all, and speeding ever faster to that point.
Ok then, since we ( planet earth ) have not only not "decreased" fossil fuel use, yet alone ceased to use it, but we have in fact increased its use, how long do we have left.?? Just a question, yes? you do realize that we have failed absolutely to "stop" using fossil fuels. Or was it in fact as simple as yet another failed scientific prediction.
Surely they are becoming j ...[text shortened]... How long do we have,? or can no-one answer. I have a holiday to plan, flight to catch and all that.
Do they somehow feel that they'll be spared? I can think of no other reason they are so cavalier about it.
Another trademark they all flaunt is that they consider education to be tantamount to 'indoctrination'. Way to start circling the drain.
@metal-brain saidAre you really this stupid?
Are you saying we are beyond a point of no return so the world will be over soon and there is nothing that can be done about it? That would mean there is nothing we can do to save the world anymore. Has that occurred to you yet?
"In other words, unless we do something soon, man-made climate change will result in an irreversible chain of events that may lead to humanity ...[text shortened]... oint of no return. That means you cannot do anything anymore, so why are you contradicting yourself?
Why do you never understand anything you read?
@wajoma saidYou're like the guy standing on the floor of the House with a snowball, claiming that proved global warming wrong.
More people die from cold than heat.
My point is that the 'point of no return[tm] keeps moving because every time it's reached the catastrophists become redundant, they have to keep moving it to try and maintain their relevance.
23 years back, Guam had 5 typhoons in the space of 3 years. You should have heard the hand wringing, teeth gnashing catastrophists wail ...[text shortened]... sook, sook, point of no return, boohoo"
They just had their first typhoon in 20 years this month.
@metal-brain saidWell, you're being an idiot. What's your point?
Greta said five years, not 1.5 degree Celsius.
You are being dishonest.
@mott-the-hoople saidProbably tired of far-right-wingers getting it wrong and claiming she said something she didn't. She probably thought removing it would end the stupid. Apparently not.
why did she delete the tweet?
typical biased lib “truth tellers” trying to work their magic…
1 edit
@wajoma saidDid you read this article??? (it's really long)
Climate related deaths have dropped 99% in the last hundred years.
Graph from peer reviewed paper in science direct ijit
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157?fbclid=IwAR2_1cfzj8_tobG74PGTqvEI7nXOm2KbyvDLmfIq1Jzk-KEcopGxYqUaWuM
Read it and weep in a puddle of your own catastrophist tears. Try not to raise the sea level too much with all your crying, you're not scaring anyone, anymore.
The article does make a fair point, but much more balanced that what you are writing.
This author argues that adaptation in other ways (besides changing our energy sources) are a key step in mitigating climate related deaths. Of course, adaptation in ways like building dikes and higher bridges and moving cities away from oceans are really really really expensive things to do. These points of no return that keep getting passed are in part due to expensive adaptations that mankind has made to avoid larger catastrophes.
US coastal cities have much higher expected damage costs than European coastal cities because they have much lower protection standards, so more investment is needed. Likewise, rapidly growing regions in developing countries will likely have a growing adaptation deficit, because coastal development takes priority to investments in adaptation.
Changing our energy sources is expensive, but so are the alternative solutions. If you ignore the hyperbolic alarmists on both sides, it seems likely that more investment in low-emission energy may have avoided the now-needed investment in alternative mitigation strategies.
@jimmac saidNot the damn point? Really? It's the ONLY point in this whole discussion!
Again, not the damn point, not at all, it is irrelevant as to weather the article is true or not.
Did the prediction come true or not, NO, like so many before it, false.
And lets just forget the rest of his post shall we, highlighting the fact that she got it wrong. That is the point of the post, yes?, get it, ok, clear now?.
Can you admit she was totally 100% wrong? "Tha ...[text shortened]... ou are being pedantic.
If she has not deleted her (now) embarrassing tweet, maybe she should, hmmm.
Why normalize lying?
@wildgrass saidWe definitely need more nature-friendly energy sources, like generating energy from tidal power or even wave power.
Did you read this article??? (it's really long)
The article does make a fair point, but much more balanced that what you are writing.
This author argues that adaptation in other ways (besides changing our energy sources) are a key step in mitigating climate related deaths. Of course, adaptation in ways like building dikes and higher bridges and moving cities away from ...[text shortened]... low-emission energy may have avoided the now-needed investment in alternative mitigation strategies.
@suzianne saidI would not call it nature friendly. To build that kind of infrastructure permanently damages coastal ecosystems. It's the same with wind power, which has destroyed wilderness areas throughout the US east coast and offshore.
We definitely need more nature-friendly energy sources, like generating energy from tidal power or even wave power.
Nuclear is the best option.