2 ms·
Sorry, but are you saying that, now that we have fire and clothing and "whole cities in permafrost", hardly anybody really dies of cold anymore? That it's mostl
by SiVal 5y ago
Sorry, but are you saying that, now that we have fire and clothing and "whole cities in permafrost", hardly anybody really dies of cold anymore? That it's mostly a myth? That the news and weather people on television who worry every winter about what they call "dangerous conditions tonight for homeless people" are just spreading "misinformation" as "deep sarcasm or another form of climate denial"?
Large numbers of people really do, even today, die of both cold and heat. That's one of the dangers for for people who are homeless or too poor to pay to heat their homes properly. If temperatures change, the change in death rates should be measured using the overall change in death rates, not just the change in heat deaths. If that statement about measuring the overall impact of climate change on death rates using net change in death rates constitutes "climate change denial" for you, then a "form of climate change denial" is a form of religious heresy for you, and there's no point arguing mere statistical matters.
- lb0 5y ago> Sorry, but are you saying that, now that we have fire and clothing and "whole cities in permafrost", hardly anybody really dies of cold anymore? No, but how & how many people die to cold right now will be significantly different to how & how many people may die due to heat in the future due to climate change. It is really just a strawman apples to oranges comparison to make here at all, because also: And I'm further saying that climate change will likely also not change due to how many people die to cold right now.. where do you have this from? We get more persistant extremes both directions, right now! > no point arguing mere statistical matters. That's cheap... so no numbers or relative scale?