Anonymous asked in Yahoo ProductsYahoo MailAbuse and Spam · 5 years ago

How is catastrophic global warming going to kill millions or billions of humans?

By crop loss, with crop production increasing faster than population growth?

By extreme weather, with no statistically significant increase in global droughts, hurricanes or tornadoes?

By killing off the coral, though coral have been around for 400 million years at CO2 concentrations of 4000 ppm?

By sea level rise of a whole 1.7 to 3.2 mm/year?

How many do you estimate will die because of AGW (as in lives lost from the detriments MINUS lives saved fromt eh benefits)?


As Ottawa said, 4,000,000 die a year from respiratory illness due to heat their homes with solid fuel like dung. 4,000,000 deaths from lack of power. You warmers want to limit power generation, so you better show some lives saved AND in the millions. I would expect more than just wild guesses, too.

18 Answers

  • 5 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Here's what I don't get. Claims of future catastrophe for humans have been going on for eons. More recently, it was Thomas Malthus who assumed that linear growth of crop production combined with exponential growth of population meant something had to give.

    This idea was "modernized" by Paul Ehrlich in his book, the Population Bomb. He was so confident that famine and disease would overcome the world that he made statements like "I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

    Of course, past failures at future predictions don't mean anything about current predictions. However, they could be a base for skepticism.

    But back to what I don't get. We know right now that 4 million people die every year from indoor air pollution (for one example). And this is primarily due to a lack of electricity in developing countries forcing people to burn biomass and dung inside for warmth and cooking.

    I suspect that Noble Cause Corruption causes many to be so blinded by the predictions of climate catastrophe and future human devastation that they tend to forget that FOUR MILLION are dying RIGHT NOW, EVERY YEAR.

    Deny that.

  • 5 years ago

    Carastrophic WHAT!. Global Warming was caused by a Alien Organism & was turned off once, but has been moved & is melting ice again to flood out all species on earth. They can melt one areas & use pressure points to put the storms anywhere they want on earth while allowing other iced areas to build up for backup freshwater. This can go on & on. I'm counting on late 2017 or early 2018 when their counterparts dont show up. just maybe they'll go find out where they are. As is their counterparts collided with Halley;s comet in deep space according to NASA'S Hubble Telescope. Mike

    Source(s): FACTUAL LOGIC
  • J
    Lv 6
    5 years ago

    Global warming and snow storms will kill billions.

  • John
    Lv 4
    5 years ago

    If global warming kills millions, or even billions, of people it will be by a combination of climate related events and not by any single one. Humans depend on many species of life, either directly or indirectly, and the loss of enough of these species will only further stress our existence. The climate has not just changed. The climate is still changing.

    Who cares what Ottawa Mike says on this? People die from a variety of different things everyday and all around the world. How does that negate the fact that there will also be loss of life associated with climate change? Answer, it does not negate the deaths that are and will be derived from climate change. Ottawa Mike is at his usual trick of just trying to create distractions. Period! You took his bait, hook, line and sinker knowing that you will be reeled in, Raisin Caine. Yet, you seeked out his bait to swallow whole as if distractions are the only thing that could sustain you.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 5 years ago

    I don't think we should be limiting the amount of CO2 we produce. We're just idiots who are thinking like theoretical scientists about the Earth, in the sense that we are pondering what the world will theoretically be like, in the next MANY years. What they are talking about is nonsense. In the UK alone, homeowners have been denied the right to set their indoor temp at anywhere past 65. Not thinking about today's issues, that's for sure.

  • JimZ
    Lv 7
    5 years ago

    Obviously it isn't going to do squat. It certainly isn't worth changing our entire way of life and our way of life. Alarmists want to have their nonsense and credibility too. Bacch claims catastrophic is your word while he constantly warns of the catastrophic effects of CO2.

    Added: Alarmists talk as if it has to be catastrophic. Why? If it caused more people to survive, that would be bad for some of them. If it caused more crops, that would feed that humanity feeding off their sacred planet. If it helped 99% of the species but reduced the habitat for a few, they would focus on those few and not take into account the benefits. I would prefer that humans keep our impact on nature to a minimum. I certainly don't want unintended consequences but I can't just say that a moderation in temperature with slight warming is necessarily bad overall. They want to impose solutions that won't solve anything. Their solutions won't change China and India. They seem more hell bent on damaging us than they are at helping the "planet".

  • 5 years ago

    The perpetuation of the global warming hoax is never ending since it was first brought out in1985 when the hoaxsters proclaimed visible catastrophe within the next fifteen years.

    Here is a reality check on what the majority of scientists really believe as opposed to politicians.

  • Mike S
    Lv 6
    5 years ago

    Of course if you looked at the data you'd noticed that while delayed in effect, the curves haven't changed between what's happening now & what his group predicted would happen, but I suspect collusion between the asker & answerer anyways....

  • 5 years ago

    Where in the IPCC does it say Catastrophic. Is it a denier made up word?

  • James
    Lv 5
    5 years ago

    Global warming could easily kill millions through crop failure or ocean acidification. You want to bet millions of lives (primarily in poorer countries) on your lack of statistical significance. I'll grant that no one knows what the future will hold, but you're willing to run a global experiment on the climate and ecosystem of the only planet that we have--and in doing so you are betting AGAINST the laws of physics as expressed in global climate models.

    So what if you're wrong, what's the world supposed to do, sue you? I'm pretty sure that you will neither be around to pay nor have the resources to pay if you were. Isn't that the point of your argument, really? That you can do nothing and reap the rewards of your inaction, while passing most of the risk to future generations?

    How many people are dying now and what costs are we paying now due to how much the climate has already changed? Superstorm Sandy cost $60 billion and took hundreds of lives, how much of that was due to global warming? Cyclone Nargis killed 140,000 people, how much of that was due to global warming? I don't know, but I'm quite certain that in neither of those cases would the answer be "zero".

    Simple extrapolation, that you are wont to do, is an argument based on statistics, not science. It is essentially a method that does not involve thinking or scientific principles. It's the reason that every prospectus comes with a warning "Past performance does not guarantee future returns", yet that is what you base your denial of AGW on.

    Even Mark Twain made fun of your kind of thinking. Here is a relevant quote from "Life on the Mississippi":

    "In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. This is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upward of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.