Comments on: MIT: Global Warming of 7°C ‘Could Kill Billions This Century’

By: Michael H Anderson

Michael H Anderson — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 19:28:19 +0000

Skepticism skeptic – do you just spam all the AGW skeptic sites with the same crap? This thread is about a laughable “statistic” in particular, not sea ice. Your point, such as it is, is not germane to the issue under discussion – and that’s how we tell an adult from an adolescent in the real world.

Lies, damn lies, statistics – and transparent redirection. Holy red herring!

By: Skepticism skeptic

Skepticism skeptic — Sun, 31 May 2009 21:28:16 +0000

Note that the June Arctic ice area shown in the graphs is about the same as in 2007-2008 years of record lows, and having been higher in May, is therefore falling faster. Note also that the average ice thickness is far below historic norms, so there’s less to melt.

Please revisit this in October, and tell us whether “Arctic ice extent is at the highest…” still seems like a good way to characterize the year.

Also, regarding “the record for the most snow covered area” in January, is the area dusted with snow in midwinter really a good proxy for trends in global climate?

By: Michael H anderson

Michael H anderson — Sun, 31 May 2009 17:30:00 +0000

I remember hearing the billions this century stat. It took about a second for me to realize that about 6.5 billion people will die in the next century. Heart attack, cancer, malnutrition, you name it – we’re all going to die “in the next century”.

These people are either very stupid, or assume everyone else is. Either one troubles me greatly.

By: Smokey

Smokey — Sat, 30 May 2009 00:17:25 +0000

It's interesting reading the comments below a globaloney warming article on another site. Maybe people are really starting to see through the scam: click

By: Just The Facts

Just The Facts — Fri, 29 May 2009 23:45:03 +0000

Smokey (04:33:55) :

“But then it comes from the odious Kofi Annan, one of the most despicable human beings in existence.”

I don’t think that Kofi is despicable, I think he is well meaning, but misinformed. I think if he knew how far off the IPCC models and conclusions are, and grasped the possibility that we may be heading for a period (of potentially catastrophic) cooling, then he would be acting to prepare the world for however the climate may change.

Or maybe he just doesn’t have any power…

By: Brian in Alaska

Brian in Alaska — Fri, 29 May 2009 18:38:16 +0000

This article refers to medical studies showing the health benefits of a warming climate. "In early 2008, the Department of Health of the UK released “Health Effects of Climate Change in the UK 2008,” an update of previous reports from 2001/2002, edited by Sari Kovats. They used IPCC models that predicted 2.5 C to 3 C mean temperature increases in the U.K. by 2100. They found that there was no increase in heat-related deaths from 1971–2002, despite warming in summers, suggesting that the UK population is adapting to warmer conditions. But cold-related mortality fell by more than a third in all regions. The overall trend in mortality for the warming from 1971–2002 was beneficial. They state, in summary, that “Winter deaths will continue to decline as the climate warms.” After seeing the snow level coming down the mountains again over the last couple of days, I'm all for it.

By: Mike Bryant

Mike Bryant — Fri, 29 May 2009 12:35:25 +0000

I’m still loving the title, billions will be killed by global warming this century. Someone pointed this out above but I think it bears repeating. How many will die this century if the temperatures return to “optimum”? First, there is no optimum temperature for adaptable mankind and second, practically everyone alive today will die before the end of the century.
Maybe the headline should read, “6.5 Billion People Will DIE this Century”.
I don’t understand why this type of scare tactic works, I guess everyone thinks or feels they will live forever.
It reminds me of Katie Couric asking Michael Eisner why animals were dying at the Disney Animal Kingdom ten or twelve years ago. Mike had to explain on TV that animals really do die sometimes no matter what precautions are taken. I think my dad exlained that to me when I was three.

By: Smokey

Smokey — Fri, 29 May 2009 11:33:55 +0000

Just The Facts,

That link was some amazing propaganda. A perfect example of the Big Lie technique. Everything it stated regarding globaloney is flagrantly wrong. But then it comes from the odious Kofi Annan, one of the most despicable human beings in existence.

By: Just The Facts

Just The Facts — Fri, 29 May 2009 11:17:03 +0000

OMG, I’ve killed them with my car…
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/05/29/annan.climate.change.human/index.html

By: Rob H

Rob H — Fri, 29 May 2009 07:13:10 +0000

These clowns at MIT can’t even predict next year nevertheless 2100. Idiots.

By: Greg Walcher

Greg Walcher — Thu, 28 May 2009 21:30:03 +0000

The study is not only absurd in its manner of reaching conclusion not based on science, but perhaps even worse, the press hype it generated has done untold damage to the reputation of MIT. Environmental discussions ought to be based on science, which is observational, not on computer models, which will always be subject to the will of the programmer (GIGO, as you wrote). No serious scientist would ever claim any fact of science is “settled,” as so many in the Gore-UN-IPCC crowd claim. Better, more accurate, and especially more recent information should always give rise to additional study. The fact that these “researchers” continue to base sensational claims on computer models already proven wrong simply shows that this is not science, but political activity.

Check here for regular interpretation of natural resources policy – http://www.gregwalcher.com

By: Mike Bryant

Mike Bryant — Thu, 28 May 2009 12:24:34 +0000

Joel,
You said, “I know that you are very suspicious of government and that this then informs your economic and scientific beliefs.”

I am no political beast but I believe we are all better off following Jefferson’s feeling’s about government…

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive.
Thomas Jefferson

By: Mike Bryant

Mike Bryant — Thu, 28 May 2009 11:53:26 +0000

Since we’ve been looking at some of the products coming from MIT, perhaps a post about the MIT study of Cap and Trade costs would be appropriate. I feel that MIT has grossly underestimated the costs per household, however I could be wrong. The concentrated attention of so many of the brilliant people here might bring a better understanding of the costs we are incurring, and whether those costs are justified by the science.
Thanks,
Mike

By: Roger Sowell

Roger Sowell — Thu, 28 May 2009 04:01:59 +0000

Re projecting the CO2 increase for the next 90 years:

From the U.S. Energy Information Agency, EIA,

“. . . the electric power sector, which generates 41% of the carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, decreased its power generation by 1% in 2008, but decreased its carbon dioxide emissions by 2.1%. In other words, the power sector decreased its emissions intensity by 1.1% in 2008. The EIA attributes that accomplishment to a decrease in the use of all fossil fuels at power plants, a “feat credited in part to an increase in electricity generated from wind power.” [bold emphasis added -- RES]

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/press/press318.html

One can only wonder if the MIT study-group has included the impacts on atmospheric CO2 from all the wind-power plants that are to be built over the next 90 years? Or will this require yet another iteration of model-tuning and running?

By: Indiana Bones

Indiana Bones — Thu, 28 May 2009 01:17:21 +0000

Martin (15:00:32) :

sponsors are listed here:
http://globalchange.mit.edu/sponsors/current.html

big oil & Co :-)

“When logic and proportion
Have fallen sloppy dead
And the White Knight is talking backwards…”
Jefferson Airplane