The horror of global warming!

ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Just for proportions.

Well over 500,000 earthquake deaths since 1900.

Deaths for completely preventable disease is perhaps a Billion, since 1900.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Same reason. Just for proportions.

Death rates bandied this way, are meaningless. That is why I posted it. Anything that tries to associated Tw production sources to death rates miss the entire point. People die in droves but not from this.

Proportion.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Same reason. Just for proportions.

Death rates bandied this way, are meaningless. That is why I posted it. Anything that tries to associated Tw production sources to death rates miss the entire point. People die in droves but not from this.

Proportion.
Click to expand...
sorry what is the point?

anyone who correlates smoking to numbers of deaths is missing the point?people die in droves?
anyone who counts the number of deaths on a construction project is missing the point? people die in droves?
anyone who counted the number of people killed on 911 is missing the point? people die in droves?

if im reading this wrong i apologise and please correct me
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Yeah, you are missing it. People die in droves. And the un-intend consequences come from ignoring proportion.

And I don't buy this meta-data about Tw production linked to death at this level of detail SWAG only, I am sure.

No peer reviewed research was shown. So, I won't argue with the professional tap dancers. Your mind on certain subjects is much more closed that mine. That's all.

Yet, I am not trying to open your mind. It doesn't seem possible on these few subjects.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Yeah, you are missing it. People die in droves. And the un-intend consequences come from ignoring proportion.

And I don't buy this meta-data about Tw production linked to death at this level of detail SWAG only, I am sure.

No peer reviewed research was shown. So, I won't argue with the professional tap dancers. Your mind on certain subjects is much more closed that mine. That's all.

Yet, I am not trying to open your mind. It doesn't seem possible on these few subjects.
Click to expand...
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
you can see the working out of it there go have a look see how it adds up

i have never seen a conflicting set so have no reason to doubt it.

now as to "proportion" you saying theres lots of people so theres no point comparing safety of 2 different ways of doing things?
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
One - I think this drive to indemnify danger is a real danger. It leads to the straw dog. We drive fear uncertainly and doubt by suggesting there is an ideal situation, with no danger. Not that you are, feel me? But, the entire world is mortgaged and insured beyond any sense. It is about 90%, no there there. No cash. Mostly indemnity and promise.

Very fragile when we get caught in the scam in Economic war. We left ourselves open and China caught us. That was not a President doing. Just that they allowed it. They wanted home ownership for all to stabilize all manner of things.

Two - Yeah it is econ-war, but, we still won that round. We forced both China and Russia to stop the re-arming. Tough nuts. I can't say even if that was intended.

My point is that even if, those "facts" are correct, they still don't show anything at all but noise in the death of people.

It is the same as the gun debate to me. !2,000 gun murders is nothing in 300M people. The million saves a year produced by guns (outside law enforcement), is something.

Proportion. I'm neutral to all these debates, even the Constitutional ones. I am just taking proportion.

Why have a bunch of people sign on about AGW, when we know for a fact, this world is starving in the midst of plenty?

People die in droves and you don't seem to want to see that. This isn't the old age or the usual. This is entirely preventable. For example.


Every year 15 million children die of hunger. (so they say)

This my forum friend, is just about 42,000 kids, mostly infants.....A DAY, starve to death. That is 28 in the minute you read this. And it is one child every 2 seconds dies for no reason.

So, I am only taking about proportion. This we can do something about, yet we want to jack all this money into tech bullshit that does not work on a global scale for energy needs. It is only about that to me, the de-railing of the energy economy. More people will starve.

AFAICS, the globe is sure to cool. And you know the hourly energy budget of this world dwarfs what we produce in a human lifetime.

Proportion.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
One - I think this drive to indemnify danger is a real danger. It leads to the straw dog. We drive fear uncertainly and doubt by suggesting there is an ideal situation, with no danger. Not that you are, feel me? But, the entire world is mortgaged and insured beyond any sense. It is about 90%, no there there. No cash. Mostly indemnity and promise.
Click to expand...
hang on i brought up "twh deaths" because someone was saying nuclear was unsafe. is the process of showing someone their beliefs are not based in fact idemnifying danger now?

i certainly am not saying danger can be eliminated and the world certainly isnt crippled as to moving on with this financially


Two - Yeah it is econ-war, but, we still won that round. We forced both China and Russia to stop the re-arming. Tough nuts. I can't say even if that was intended.
Click to expand...
. the days are over where mere mention of the "evil commie threat" added up to a reasoned arguement. now a bit more is needed
My point is that even if, those "facts" are correct, they still don't show anything at all but noise in the death of people.
Click to expand...
nonsense if it was just "noise" the figures would all be the same
It is the same as the gun debate to me. !2,000 gun murders is nothing in 300M people. The million saves a year produced by guns (outside law enforcement), is something.
Click to expand...
really guns in climate thread? not to derail but the study of this laughable "million saved"?
Proportion. I'm neutral to all these debates, even the Constitutional ones. I am just taking proportion.
Click to expand...
as to this you show that your lying within this post

your a "cooler" you do not believe in AGW ©and have your own beliefs and in a climate thread to claim "neutrality" is nonsense
Why have a bunch of people sign on about AGW, when we know for a fact, this world is starving in the midst of plenty?

People die in droves and you don't seem to want to see that. This isn't the old age or the usual. This is entirely preventable. For example.


Every year 15 million children die of hunger. (so they say)

This my forum friend, is just about 42,000 kids, mostly infants.....A DAY, starve to death. That is 28 in the minute you read this. And it is one child every 2 seconds dies for no reason.
Click to expand...


what a disgustly patheic arguement to bring

i thought better of you
So, I am only taking about proportion. This we can do something about, yet we want to jack all this money into tech bullshit that does not work on a global scale for energy needs. It is only about that to me, the de-railing of the energy economy. More people will starve.
Click to expand...
nice strawman you got going there ....
AFAICS, the globe is sure to cool. And you know the hourly energy budget of this world dwarfs what we produce in a human lifetime.

Proportion.
Click to expand...
ahh the neutral passing shot from the bastion of neutrality
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
And who screws the straw pooch now? I did not say commie threat. That's a dry hole to fuck, I'm not talking about that Cold War, you are.

I mentioned that when oil prices are high Russia can re-arm. That forces China, not us, to re-arm.

Oh, you love to dance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top