placeholder

As usual, you've missed the point. Fossil fuels are now replaceable.

Thanks for the nostalgia for a time when there were no feasible replacements for fossil fuels. What's that got to do with the future?

More unproved, unbacked assertions from you. Got any evidence to back your claim up?

First off, the research on deaths from heat caused kidney disease is still in its early stages. In fact, it's not included in climate statistics since it's a newly noticed phenomenon. That figure of 12,000 has nothing to do with deaths caused by kidney disease. But I noticed that you ignored the fact that pollution caused by burning fossil fuels is responsible for a lot more than 2.8 million deaths per year. Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for 1 in 5 deaths worldwide New research from Harvard University, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University College London, found that more than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution, significantly higher than previous research suggested—meaning that air pollution from burning fossil fuels like coal and diesel was responsible for about 1 in 5 deaths worldwide. The study, “Global Mortality From Outdoor Fine Particle Pollution Generated by Fossil Fuel Combustion,” published in Environmental Research, is based on a groundbreaking analysis that enabled the researchers to directly attribute premature deaths from fine particulate pollution (PM 2.5) to fossil fuel combustion. “Often, when we discuss the dangers of fossil fuel combustion, it’s in the context of CO2 and climate change and overlook the potential health impact of the pollutants co-emitted with greenhouse gases,” said Dr. Joel Schwartz, Professor at Harvard Chan School and co-author of the study. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/news/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-responsible-for-1-in-5-deaths-worldwide/

Those numbers don't reflect all the health damage caused by climate change. For instance kidney disease. It's seen a huge rise, particularly in those who have to labor out of doors in increasing heat. Rising temperatures linked to kidney disease Scientists from Brazil and Australia have found evidence of a link between rising temperatures and renal diseases. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/01/climate-change-rising-temperatures-linked-to-kidney-disease/ And the fact is that the cause of global warming, the burning of fossil fuels, creates pollution which kills millions and millions yearly and impairs the health of millions more.

That's what you want it to mean. Climate Change Is Destabilizing Insurance Industry The president of one of the world’s largest insurance brokers warned Wednesday that climate change is destabilizing the insurance industry, driving up prices and pushing insurers out of high-risk markets. Aon PLC President Eric Andersen told a Senate committee that climate change is injecting uncertainty into an industry built on risk prediction and has created “a crisis of confidence around the ability to predict loss.” Reinsurance companies, which help insurers pay catastrophic losses, “have been withdrawing from high-risk areas, around wildfire and flood in particular,” Andersen told the Senate Budget Committee. He added, “Just as the U.S. economy was overexposed to mortgage risk in 2008, the economy today is over exposed to climate risk.” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-is-destabilizing-insurance-industry/ Home insurers cut natural disasters from policies as climate risks grow Some of the largest U.S. insurance companies say extreme weather has led them to end certain coverages, exclude natural disaster protections and raise premiums In the aftermath of extreme weather events, major insurers are increasingly no longer offering coverage that homeowners in areas vulnerable to those disasters need most. At least five large U.S. property insurers — including Allstate, American Family, Nationwide, Erie Insurance Group and Berkshire Hathaway — have told regulators that extreme weather patterns caused by climate change have led them to stop writing coverages in some regions, exclude protections from various weather events and raise monthly premiums and deductibles. https://archive.ph/mwZER

And why does being mentioned last make it of little or no account?

Right. All this information reported on comes from the world's leading scientific journals. So on the one hand, we have an anonymous poster on aseannow.com on one side of the issue, and actual scientific researchers on the other. I'm going to do the crazy thing and go along with the scientists. You've got nothing.

Even before the covid pandemic, world hunger was on the rise: Global hunger continues to rise, new UN report says 821 million people now hungry and over 150 million children stunted, putting hunger eradication goal at risk https://www.unicef.org/eap/press-releases/global-hunger-continues-rise-new-un-report-says Can you cite some evidence from scientific journals or the IPCC report that predicted that millions would have died already?

You really don't have a clue about the current state of research, do you? Antarctic ice sheet collapse could add 3 meters to sea-level rise The East Antarctic Ice Sheet could be in more danger of collapsing than previously thought, National Geographic reports. The ice sheet is the world's largest, holding 80% of the planet's ice. But some 400,000 years ago, a large chunk about the size of Arizona collapsed into the ocean, causing sea levels to rise by more than 3 meters. The worrying thing is that this happened during a period of relatively mild warmth, according to a study published yesterday in Nature. And it could happen again. https://www.science.org/content/article/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse-could-add-3-metres-sea-level-rise West Antarctic ice sheet faces ‘unavoidable’ melting, a warning for sea level rise Accelerating ice losses are all but “unavoidable” this century in vulnerable West Antarctic ice shelves as waters warm around them, according to new research. And the analysis could mean scientists were too conservative in predicting about one to three feet of sea level rise by 2100. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/10/23/sea-live-rise-antarctic-ice-loss/ Greenland losing 30m tonnes of ice an hour, study reveals A significant part of the Greenland ice sheet itself is also thought by scientists to be close to a tipping point of irreversible melting, with ice equivalent to 1-2 metres of sea level rise probably already expected. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/17/greenland-losing-30m-tonnes-of-ice-an-hour-study-reveals#:~:text=A recent study suggested the,level rise probably already expected.

The response to certain disasters, like hurricanes, has greatly improved thanks to greatly improved forecasting and transportation, and medical progress. But the consequences of other slow moving disasters like ocean acidification, sea level rise, and loss of glaciers, aren't so easily remedied

"The film includes segments intended to refute critics who say that global warming is unproven or that warming will be insignificant. For example, Gore cites the retreat of nearly all glaciers caused by melting over recent decades, showing nine cases, such as the Grinnel and Boulder Glaciers and Patagonia. He discusses the possibility of the collapse and melting of a major ice sheet in Greenland or in West Antarctica, either of which could raise global sea levels by approximately 20 feet (6m), flooding coastal areas and producing 100 million refugees. Melt water from Greenland, because of its lower salinity, could then halt the currents that keep northern Europe warm and quickly trigger dramatic local cooling there. It also contains various short animated projections of what could happen to different animals more vulnerable to global warming." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth#:~:text=The film includes segments intended,and Boulder Glaciers and Patagonia. None of this is inconsistent with climatological research.

This is your idea of evidence?

what would be wrong still? What predictions about glaciers, the severity of hurricanes, etc was wrong?

Always wrong? Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate? The majority of the film, covering issues like Himalayan Glaciers, Greenland and Antarctica losing ice, the severity of hurricanes and other weather phenomena, was accurate and represented the science as it stood. Since the release of the film, considerably more evidence has been found in support of the science and projections in the film. https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=187

Really? Offering someone else's opinion constitutes an endorsement? And as the article which you originally linked to and are now ignoring, Gore did not categorically state that such melting would occur.

Ultimately, so what? Gore is not a scientist. If it's science you want, go to scientific journals. There the consensus is overwhelming.

Here is the headline of the article you originally linked to: Al Gore did not ‘predict’ ice caps melting by 2013 but misrepresented data It goes into a great deal of detail about why what you are now claiming and that fox news article you linked to is a misrepresentation.

Your comment makes no sense. Richard Lindzen, one of the leading scientists denying global warming made a bet that global average temperature would fall rather than rise. Maybe the bet would be worth it at those odds, but do you seriously believe that he just made that bet to make a possible killing?

You clearly didn't read the link you cited. Gore was referring to a prediction made by a climate researcher. He got that prediction somewhat wrong but he never claimed what you said he did. And you're also wrong about everybody claiming that temperatures would continue to rise. In fact, climate change denialists said just the opposite. They claimed that in the 21st century temperatures would decline. Richard Lindzen, one of the leading denialists, actually publicly offered to bet that in 20 years the average global temperature would actually decline. "Professor Lindzen had been willing to bet that global temperatures would drop over the next 20 years. No bet was agreed on that; Dr Annan said Prof Lindzen wanted odds of 50-1 against falling temperatures, so would win $10,000 if the Earth cooled but pay out only £200 if it warmed." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/aug/19/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment#:~:text=Professor Lindzen had been willing,£200 if it warmed. And he was far from alone in making that prediction.

False. It's not the same old same old Major insurance companies are actually refusing to take on new properties and some are even abandoning the California market. California loses 2 more property insurers in growing crisis "However, as a rising number of insurers have limited coverage or exited the state, some homeowners are left with only the insurance option of last resort, the government-created FAIR Plan. Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara is trying to stem the exodus with a new “Sustainable Insurance Strategy,” which includes rules that insurers must write at least an average of 85% of their California market share in high wildfire risk communities." https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/california-loses-two-more-property-insurers-growing-crisis...

No, I've heard and read of the right wing hysteria about Black Rock. But before I get to that, as I noted previously, Larry Fink is CEO of Blackrock. The sources I cited were McKenzie Woods, Lazard, and Ernst & Young. As for Blackrock, I've got news for you, they aren't boycotting fossil fuels as the loons in states like Texas maintain. Even BlackRock Funds Buying Oil Stocks Are Banned by Texas ESG Fight Texas bars its public pensions from investing in 350 funds run by asset-management giants such as BlackRock Inc. and Invesco Ltd. because a key Republican state official says they “boycott” the oil and gas industries. But a Bloomberg News analysis found that the 72 BlackRock funds on the prohibited list have invested more than $2 billion in the oil industry, while an Invesco fund allocates about 20% to oil and natural gas companies, some of which are also Texas-based. https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/even-blackrock-funds-buying-oil-stocks-are-banned-by-texas-esg-fight-1.2020179 Or is Bloomberg lying, too?

They weren't behind paywalls for me. I don't subscribe to them. And it's pretty bizarre that you repeatedly made unfounded statements without having actually read the texts. But here are links I created using archive.ph. The first is to the Vox article that explains what it would take for renewables to power 100% of the U.S. grid. https://archive.ph/45Grt https://archive.ph/C3j8x https://archive.ph/pVVRv https://archive.ph/izGU7

It's hard to resist jeering at someone who repeatedly tells the same falsehood: the 2 companies I cited as examples are manufacturing real batteries for real use in the real world. What don't you understand about that?

The potency of CO2 as a greenhouse gas was proved in the 19th century by the eminent Irish Physicist, John Tindall. Have you been sleeping for the past 150 or ss years?