.jpg){kind=link}
Bloomberg has helpfully drawn together a series of dire predictions from the latest US government report about how climate is going to make us less educated, unproductive, violent, and too heat exhausted to work. My question – how do they explain Singapore?
Blame Global Warming for Your Bad Attitude
Climate change is making us angry. It may also cause more assaults, murders, and even poor math grades for your kids.
It doesn’t take a PhD to see that climate affects our lives. Anyone who lives far enough from the equator can tell just by opening the closet.
It takes a lot of scientists, however, to reveal how climate affects us—particularly as our climate changes. Sure, there’s prolonged heat and drought in some places, persistent floods and storms in others—all the ways we’ve learned to see global warming (though some still reject the science). But an exhaustive review of almost 200 different studies reveals not only the extent of those predictable changes but also how we humans are reacting to climatic wallops. The results are troubling.
Richard Moss, senior scientist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s Joint Global Change Research Institute, calls the study essential to making clear the everyday price of climate change. Moss, who led the climate division of the U.S. Global Change Research Program and contributes to the National Climate Assessment, said “it’s always been a challenge in some of our national conversations.”
…
If you think the Bloomberg article is unreadable, try the government website.
Thankfully there is a referenced study, which lets us see the gist of the argument;
For centuries, thinkers have considered whether and how climatic conditions—such as temperature, rainfall, and violent storms—influence the nature of societies and the performance of economies. A multidisciplinary renaissance of quantitative empirical research is illuminating important linkages in the coupled climate-human system. We highlight key methodological innovations and results describing effects of climate on health, economics, conflict, migration, and demographics. Because of persistent “adaptation gaps,” current climate conditions continue to play a substantial role in shaping modern society, and future climate changes will likely have additional impact. For example, we compute that temperature depresses current U.S. maize yields by ~48%, warming since 1980 elevated conflict risk in Africa by ~11%, and future warming may slow global economic growth rates by ~0.28 percentage points per year. In general, we estimate that the economic and social burden of current climates tends to be comparable in magnitude to the additional projected impact caused by future anthropogenic climate changes. Overall, findings from this literature point to climate as an important influence on the historical evolution of the global economy, they should inform how we respond to modern climatic conditions, and they can guide how we predict the consequences of future climate changes.
Read more: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6304/aad9837
So how do we know these predictions are nonsense, at least with regard to the USA? We know because the world is full of highly productive economies which experience climates far warmer than any imaginable global warming would inflict on the USA.
The predicted social impact of warmer temperatures is clearly the most ridiculous claim.
Blazing hot Singapore, the country I mentioned in the title, with an average GDP growth rate of 6.88% since 1976, is one of the most productive and safe countries in the world. Singapore’s education system is consistently at or near the top of international league tables. Violent crime rates in Singapore are amongst the lowest in the world. This real world example utterly contradicts US government claims that warmer climates cause increased violence, inability to study, and reduced productivity.
Hot weather in a region which is normally cold can cause suffering and health impacts. You have to drink a lot of water in truly hot weather – coffee and fizzy drinks will not adequately hydrate you. People who have rarely experienced real heat, who do not habitually drink water, sometimes don’t understand this, and suffer dehydration.
A sign sometimes seen in pub toilets of tropical Australia reads;
If your urine is clear, keep drinking.
If your urine is yellow, drink water.
If your urine is brown, you’re going to die
After a year or two of living in a warm climate, or repeated experience with hot weather, one way or another you learn the rules. Even if the world warms as predicted, most people will not experience the abrupt change in climate which people who migrate to the tropics experience. People who stay put will have decades to adapt, to learn appropriate warm weather adaptions. People who grow up in warm climates don’t suffer dehydration through stupidity, they learn to drink plenty of water as toddlers.
The alleged impact on agriculture is also ridiculous. Given that staple crops such as wheat are grown everywhere from the Canadian steppes to the arid inland of tropical Australia, I somehow suspect there is enough agricultural genetic diversity available to cope with any imaginable change in global temperature ranges.
Planting times also have a significant moderating effect on crop viability. On the edge of the tropics where I live, there is a very simple solution to growing temperate climate vegetables – you plant them in Autumn, or at the start of “winter”. Temperate vegetables can’t cope with the tropical Summer heat – but by the time that heat arrives, the winter planted veggies have long since been harvested.
Education – as I mentioned, warm Asian countries, including Singapore, regularly score at or near the top of education leagues. Suggesting that people can’t concentrate and learn in warm climates – the scientists who peddle such claims should be ashamed of spouting such obvious nonsense.
Violence – some tropical countries are extremely violent. Some freezing cold countries are also extremely violent. There are plenty of tropical and cold climate countries which are not violent. Surely this suggests to anyone not on the government payroll that violence is more of a cultural issue, than a climate issue?
In conclusion, claims that a slight increase in temperature, even several degrees rise in temperature, would have a dramatic impact on human health, behaviour and productivity in the USA are nonsense. The irrefutable proof that such claims are nonsense is simply that humans who live in the tropics, people who are acclimatised to the heat, have no problem working, prospering, learning and living in warm weather.
“The predicted social impact of warmer temperatures is clearly the most ridiculous claim.
Blazing hot Singapore, the country I mentioned in the title, with an average GDP growth rate of 6.88% since 1976, is one of the most productive and safe countries in the world…… This real world example utterly contradicts US government claims that warmer climates cause increased violence, inability to study, and reduced productivity.”
First, Singapore is not blazing hot. Peak temperatures year round are 32-33C (89-91F), and on rare occasions 34 (93). Hot, yes, but not 100+ F blazing hot. Plus there is cloud cover on most days – I know this because I have lived in Singapore for 20 years.
More importantly, as it relates to productivity, Singapore is referred to as the air conditioned nation for good reason. A large percentage of the economy is in the services sector, which is air conditioned, as is much of the manufacturing sector- pharmaceutical, electronics mfg and aviation services. There is no agricultural sector to speak of, unlike the rest of SE Asia.
Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s founding father, called air conditioning the greatest invention of the 20th century as it allowed office workers in Singapore to be more productive during the day- which in itself refutes the point that temperatures don’t matter as it relates to productivity.
“The irrefutable proof that such claims are nonsense is simply that humans who live in the tropics, people who are acclimatised to the heat, have no problem working, prospering, learning and living in warm weather.”
The tropics are not known for being highly productive regions, anyone who has lived there will know that. Historically, productivity has been far greater in cooler Europe and North American than in tropical countries So yes, temperature does matter as it relates to productivity. Research papers have well established the link between higher temperatures and productivity: http://www.microbecolhealthdis.net/index.php/gha/article/viewArticle/2047
Excellent article presenting known and well established findings that worker productivity decreases (natural adaptation) with increase in temperature and humidity in order to prevent heat stress. Yes, remove air conditioning from Singapore and see what will happen. I agree with the Singapore founding father, bring air conditioning!
Eric, you have picked out Singapore to debunk the hypothesis – well done, case proven. But, on the other hand, it isn’t hard to read racist implications in the bullshite put forward by the Obama Govt climate modelers? You know, who lives where, what their GDP and so on is? Basically, Africa, etc. Funny who the real racists are.
Singapore does not debunk the hypothesis – they use air conditioning to create a comfortable environment for their workers, the vast majority of which work indoors.
Agree!
The success came before the AC. As you know very well. A Chinese population unfettered by tyranny in a good trading location are the factors, temperature has little to do with it.
Success came with freedom from Malaysia and long before widespread use of aircon. Much of the tropical world could be something like Singapore if they had the will and the intelligence
“The success came before the AC. As you know very well.”
I think I’ll listen to Lee Kuan Yew instead of you. Here are his words: When asked to name the most important invention of the 20th century, Singapore’s first prime minister and elder statesman, Lee Kuan Yew, singled out the air-conditioner.
Lim Swee Say, Singapore’s environment minister, told air-conditioning executives last year: ”Air-conditioning plays a crucial role in our economy. Without it, many of our rank-and-file workers would probably be sitting under coconut trees to escape from the heat and humidity, instead of working in high-tech factories.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/02/business/the-business-world-singapore-cools-off-and-all-must-pitch-in.html?pagewanted=all
It is completely unsubstantiated to state that temperature does not affect productivity. Studies conclusively show that both physical and mental productivity are at their best at temperatures in the low to mid 20s C.
Chris,
You are right that the low to mid 20s C is the most productive. This is why in the colder climates offices, factories and homes have central heating. I do not see how this differs from using air-conditioning. Humans adjust their environment to suit their needs and desires.
I live in Singapore and it success has a lot more to do with the rule of law, lack of corruption and the governments laissez-faire attitude towards business. Lee Kuan Yew points out this and much more in his books. Also I should point out Singapore was a great successes before air-conditioning but it does allow for Singapore to be a financial hub today like heating does for London.
As I posted above my children attend local school here and there is no air-conditioning in the class rooms in grade of high school (primary and secondary). With this Singapore schools are rated among the top in the world year after year. I think Eric has debunked the hypothesis quite well.
“The success came before the AC. As you know very well. A Chinese population unfettered by tyranny in a good trading location are the factors, temperature has little to do with it.”
Singapore’s greatest economic success has come in the last 40 years, not the century prior to that. Once again, I will go with the opinion of Singapore’s founders about the importance of air conditioning to their economic success, rather than your opinion.
CNC said: “You are right that the low to mid 20s C is the most productive. This is why in the colder climates offices, factories and homes have central heating. I do not see how this differs from using air-conditioning. Humans adjust their environment to suit their needs and desires.”
It differs because the premise of the article is that increasing temperatures do not affect productivity in tropical regions. From the article ” Bloomberg has helpfully drawn together a series of dire predictions from the latest US government report about how climate is going to make us less educated, unproductive, violent, and too heat exhausted to work. My question – how do they explain Singapore?”
Singapore does not have agriculture, nor textiles, nor the many other industries that cannot use air conditioning due to cost constraints. So therefore, implying that Singapore proves that high temperatures do not adversely impact productivity is a false analogy.
You say “Also I should point out Singapore was a great successes before air-conditioning but it does allow for Singapore to be a financial hub today like heating does for London.”
Actually, that is not true, air conditioning has been in widespread use in Singapore since the 1950s: http://www.carrier.com.sg/about/inside.aspx
As far as schools, yes, the public schools do not often have AC. Most of the private ones do.
In India in 2015 there was a heat wave with temperatures up to 48° C. 2500 people died. link
In France in 2003 a heat wave exceeded 40° C killed 14802 people. link
I lead it to others to draw conclusions.
Conclusion: heat waves happen
I was hoping you would explain why so many more French people died in a cooler and much less populous country.
Acclimation?
I strongly doubt all deaths where properly reported in India. Thousands would have died in villages and never made govt stats.
High temperatures are business as usual in an Indian summer
Northern Europe architecture is not well suited to sudden and unusual heat (I was living there at the time and was far more uncomfortable than higher heat at home in Australia)
Lack of family support (many families leave their older relatives at home and go on holidays)
Overall the found the death rate that year was pretty normal, just sadly bought the demise of some people forward due to the heat wave
Precisely, SMC. In 2005 there was a similar heat wave in France, with a tiny fraction of the same deaths.
My conclusion, cooler temperatures are more dangerous than warmer ones.
Where I live in Thailand it gets very hot and yet we are inundated by Scandinavian retirees who love it here and are having the time of their lives. They are in no hurry to go back to where they came from. Could it be that it is climate modeling and not warm weather that creates Violent Uneducated Unproductive Wastelands?
Lol, being retired is a lot different than working in rice paddies, sewing in a textile factory, or working in construction. The last time I checked, GDP productivity for a country is not based on retired people, since by definition they are not working!
Retired people spend plenty of money. The goods and services they consume are reflected in the GDP. Some folks think the Florida economy is driven by retirees and tourism. link
“Retired people spend plenty of money. The goods and services they consume are reflected in the GDP.”
Yes, they do. But that is not what we are discussing here. We are talking about the productivity of workers in tropical climates. That has nothing to do with the spending patterns of retirees.
Actually, it does.
Economics is complicated. 🙂
“Overall, findings from this literature point to climate as an important influence on the historical evolution of the global economy,”
Absolutely right about that. Warmer is better than colder. We have proved that several times over the last few thousand years without the benefit of climate models.
such as temperature, rainfall, and violent storms…
Miami
http://theblogthatatemiami.com/files/2011/01/Pinecrest-Dec-Sale-240×187.jpg
“Sure, there’s prolonged heat and drought in some places, persistent floods and storms in others—all the ways we’ve learned to see global warming (though some still reject the science).”
Yes. Because we see weather everyday, and weather is climate. Science.
I stopped reading after the ridiculous statement:
“It doesn’t take a PhD to see that climate affects our lives. Anyone who lives far enough from the equator can tell just by opening the closet.”
You know what’s mostly in MY closet you wanker? WOOL SWEATERS. LONG SLEEVE SHIRTS, WOOL PANTS and long underwear. The climate is getting warmer? Then why the hell do I have more pants than shorts and keep looking for flannel lined jeans so my legs don’t freeze?!
Why the hell are my tomatoes rotting from the bottom in my garden? Why are my pumpkins all ready orange? And WHY are the trees changing at the end of August? Not just this year but the last couple of years.
We’re getting warmer? Again, where the heck are we getting warmer exactly? Only in your isolated and sterile computer model dude….because if I can tell climate change from my closet–I say it is getting COOLER with a shorter growing season rather than warmer with a longer one.
As for the heat….sorry, I grew up in a desert…you adjust faster to heat than to cold.
How is Richard Moss a scientist?
Education and Credentials
Ph.D., Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University (1987)
M.P.A., Princeton University (1983)
B.A., Carleton College (1977)
http://www.pnl.gov/science/staff/staff_info.asp?staff_num=5688
When did “public affairs” and “public administration” become sciences?
This guy has advanced degrees in bureaucracy.
Do you make the same comments when you read posts by Christopher Monckton, with a degree in Classics?
Funny, I don’t recall anyone calling Classics a science. Nor Viscount Monckton claiming his degree made him a scientist.
So let me understand what you are saying. It’s ok to write papers on climatology and call yourself a climate change expert without a background in that area as long as you don’t call yourself a scientist – as does Monckton. But as soon as you call yourself a scientist, as does Moss, you are a fraud. Is that your position?
Another moronic red herring fallacy. Lord Monckton has nothing to do with this article or the underlying paper.
The article and his official job description refer to Dr. Moss as a government scientist. The credibility of the article rests solely on the claim that this is the work of climate scientists. This is nothing less than fraud.
“The credibility of the article rests solely on the claim that this is the work of climate scientists. This is nothing less than fraud.”
What an epically vacuous retort. Here is the leading paragraph in Worrall’s post: “Bloomberg has helpfully drawn together a series of dire predictions from the latest US government report about how climate is going to make us less educated, unproductive, violent, and too heat exhausted to work. My question – how do they explain Singapore?”
I replied to that point, if you want to go off on unrelated tangents, that’s entirely your decision. I addressed the main point of the article, if you are incapable on staying on topic, that is your problem, not mine.
Setting aside the moronic Red Herring fallacy… Lord Monckton’s job description doesn’t include the word “scientist.”
Dr. Moss is officially listed as
a scientist… When did bureaucracy become a science? The odds are that he’s classified as a publishing climate scientist, as it pertains to the 97% lie.
It is interesting that when someone like Monckton is criticized for publishing papers on atmospheric science without a relevant degree, skeptics say that degrees in that field should not be a requirement to publish. And yet when someone like Dr. Moss publishes, he is attacked for having insufficient scientific background.
Another in a series of moronic red herring fallacy. Lord Monckton has nothing to do with this article or the underlying paper.
The article and his official job description refer to Dr. Moss as a government scientist. The credibility of the article rests solely on the claim that this is the work of climate scientists. This is nothing less than fraud.
The Warmunists rely on argumentum ad verecundiam and ad populum fallacies (appeals to authority and consensus). The meme is that the more expertise and publishing volume a scientist has, the more likely he is to endorse the mythical consensus… The bogus 97%. What fraction of the bogus 97% is comprised of people like Dr. Moss, who is not a real scientist?
Furthermore, refutations of the flawed science and bogus consensus by people like Steve McIntyre, Ross McKittrick and Lord Monckton are often summarily dismissed because they are not considered to be climate scientists.
I bet they’ll blame Global Warming on this:
http://nypost.com/2016/09/09/this-is-what-parenting-on-heroin-looks-like/
When it is liberal policies that are at fault.
You misunderstand—it’s the researchers and government employees that cannot work under those conditions and fear they may have to try and survive like the rest of the brutal, angry world does. They are afraid, very afraid.
You deniers obviously have unconscious bias and probably need shocktherapy administered by scientists.
[What is the purpose of this comment? It adds nothing useful and is just an expression of your dislike of people who don’t think like you which is childish. If you have something to the point to say then by all means do so no matter how contrary but that is just abuse. Thanks . . . mod]
ok well that was sarcasm I’m on your side
…If your urine is clear, keep drinking.
If your urine is yellow, drink water.
If your urine is brown, you’re going to die
After a year or two of living in a warm climate, or repeated experience with hot weather, one way or another you learn the rules. …
Or, presumably, die…
Singapore’s climate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore#Climate
well…you have to admit he’s right
…these guys are about as unproductive as it gets
http://d22ir9aoo7cbf6.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/12/Featured-Image-TBC.jpg
I want to be unproductive like that. 🙂
Corn == Current US production is at just over 168 bushels per acre a high point in the plateau of > 150 bushels per acre achieved in 2005 which is the highest production rate in the world.
How then is this true? “For example, we compute that temperature depresses current U.S. maize yields by ~48%” Depresses it from what? See this chart of US corn production — it has never been higher.
When temperatures were lower, 1975, 1985, 1995 production was 86, 118, 113 bushels per acre respective.
How can the “hottest year ever” be the “highest production ever”?
An even better look at US corn production : here.
Hi kip, – Temperature during the day is not a linear factor in USA corn productivity when looking at different years’ productivity. Above average spring temperatures during planting & higher daytime temperature plays out better for germination of seeds to get more uniform emergence for initial growth of crop.
If the stand of plants encounter dry, rather than rainy, conditions early on then their root growth response is deeper & this improves the individual plant’s capability for nutrient/moisture access . However, moisture is also non-linear in relationship to eventual yield; since a subsequent phase of good rain will then give above average harvest yield.
Going back to temperature again: above average temperature in the later part of the season (USA would be Sept.) onward into actual harvest gives above average crop yields. In between the mentioned time frames I mentioned for USA there are other nuances for aspects loke temperature/moisture/fertilzation/genotype of corn.
In that time interval, with regards to temperature alone, above average yields are not linearly related to whether daytime temperature is above or below average. The dynamic for that growing interval is to a large extent how extreme is the variation between day & night temperature. During this period above average corn yields are recorded when this temperature differential is less pronounced than in other years (except in genotypes bred for growing where the 24 hour temperatures are always very different at night than during the day).
I have not checked this general timing of rain & temperature pattern against any specific years of high yields anyone may cite. Nor have I colated data on vegetative growth phase diurnal temperatures for the different USA states’ respective contribution to anyone’s cited high corn yield years. For the sake of brevity I have overlooked photo-period, tasseling % times, fertilization timing, etc., etc., etc.
gringo ==> Well, yeah. That why I can’t figure why the highlighted study says something “not possibly correct” — that being == “we compute that temperature depresses current U.S. maize yields by ~48%” “
Agreed, GringoJay, it’s not simple in the least.
However, the demonstrated fact that current production is at a record high of several times that of only a few decades ago contrasts highly with the claim that we would have almost double our current production if temperatures were 1F lower. That’s just not rational.
I don’t have to be an expert in agriculture to see that that claim is insane. 10%, maybe. I’d buy that as plausible, if raw conjecture. However, the 48% number shows that their model produces absurd results, and the fact that it was published puts their entire paper into question.
In a time of world food surpluses, what exactly is the greatest risk: climate change or the “socialist” promoting it?
In a sane world, the people supporting these studies would be on trial for crimes against humanity. If these morons generating this study want to know what a world on the brink looks like, go to Venezuela where eliminating private enterprise has an entire nation starving to death. Climate change does not make people angry. Lying, incompetent, evil socialists whose profane policies are killing millions cause starving people — who are REALLY angry – right before they die.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/09/06/venezuela-prepares-cut-food-supplies-anti-socialist-strongholds/
There is no experiment that can be done to prove these theories right or wrong. We can’t do controlled studies on climate. The conclusions are based on correlation from observational data and that is where any fantasy can be validated. In the simplest terms the human condition has been improving for centuries: reduced risk of violence, increased life expectancy, increased health, better nutrition, increased wealth, higher standard of living, wider dissemination of support for human rights, and just a hell of a lot more of us. Nature calls this success, so whatever climate change there has been can only have had a positive effect on the human condition if any.
This is the type of publication produced when one starts with a predetermined conclusion and then fishes through data for support.
Citing Singapore, where agriculture represents less than 0.5% of the economy, as a comparative for global adaptability to climate is absurd.
Dont think he did that actually. He did however point out that just blandly saying temperature causes social mayhem and lack of productivity is clearly false.
Claiming that heat causes sloth and violence is absurd. Pointing out that a densely populated city in the tropics is one the worlds safest and most productive rebuts the claim.
… one of the …
No, your claim does not rebut it, because they do it with air conditioning, very large chunks of the economy are done indoors in air conditioned environments.
Chris
You mean that air conditioning is the only solution needed for global warming?
ptolemy2, sure, AC is the answer if we can air condition all of our agricultural sector, and all warehouses and factories. Is that what you are suggesting?
“Claiming that heat causes sloth and violence is absurd.” Sure, a siesta is just an unfounded excuse to take a nap during the middle of the day. The phrases “keep your cool” and “don’t be a hothead” are just made up phrases that have no basis in reality.
I would think that the correlation in Singapore is for education and crime.
Agriculture can be shown by the fact that there is plenty of agriculture of all crops from Russia and Canada to Brazil and Egypt.
Mr. Ross, before i respond to your ridiculous assertions, is your mother a good or poor bowler?
Why do these jackbags always have trouble explaining things to the great unwashed? Could it be that it’s difficult to sell a sack of BS to people with a little common sense. It takes years of practice and many failures to become a master grifter. Usually this vocational education path involves entanglement with the law
Speaking of which….. The Administration has committed yet another shameless illegal act in halting the Dakota Access Pipeline. All of the environmental impact studies and permitting was c molested. The owners should go straight to the higher courts to get this over turned.
Completed not molested. Damn spell check.
“..the scientists who peddle such claims should be ashamed of spouting such obvious nonsense.”
Eric – cutpurses and pickpockets do not feel shame.
You dare mess with their revenue stream? Were it not for – the Global warming boogieman – how would they get funded to make their mortgage and BMW Lease.payments? And you wish to cut out their paid vacations to Paris and other exotic locales? You have no sense of humanity. How’s are dishonest scientists bureaucrats suppose to make a living?
Right, all those BMW driving climate scientists who vacation in Paris. As usual, no substantiation provided.
Chris do you really believe that these folks are not benefiting financially from the advancement of the Man Made Climate Catastrophe?
Is it so difficult to believe or do you fall into the camp of they deserve the richness of life they lead for ringing the alarm bell so effectively?
I promise you that they work every day at preserving their income and benefits stream. That is human nature and if you need substantiation then you are supremely naive.
Oh and they are not vacationing. These are taxpayer funded junkets. They are partying with excessive spending on food, drink and lodging. Paris was the culmination of many junkets, it was the fiscal year end celebration of the Faithful.
Bill, I believe they are benefiting financially in the sense that they have a job. But getting rich? No, far from it.
Your point about preserving their income applies to every field of endeavor. So are you saying that accountants are cooking books, medical researchers are falsifying the results of tests of new vaccines, and agricultural workers are faking the results of new strains of wheat? Why is their pervasive corruption in climatology and not in other research fields? It makes absolutely no sense
Chris what I am saying is a cottage industry has sprung up since the declaration that the debate was over and the science was settled. Why are we still paying scientists, educators, and mostly bureaucrats for settled science. Why is grant money, mostly spent with low accountability, flowing to the tune of billions. If your science is settled then, Last person out the door needs to turn off the lights.
A lot of money is being transferred from the private sector taxpayer to the public sector and the higher education industry. The media and Hollywood are feeding off this nonsense like suckle fish. And the taxpayer has no say in this spending.
When someone in the private sector complains about those who are benefiting from these government transfer payments, they are told to shut up, they are decried as deniers, they are defamed, slandered and belittled. Those who are in the recipient line, again, billions of dollars are being transferred, make above average salaries, work low pressure jobs making these above average salaries and enjoy upgraded travel accommodations to go on “conferences” to sit in circle jerks congratulating each other on how smart they are in for pulling of this flim flam. I have been at a resort location where one such conference was taking place and gotten it first hand from a feeder. No greater hoax has ever been played.
‘Drink plenty of water’ isn’t the answer at all. I grew up in some of the hottest deserts on earth such as Death Valley, for example. Your body gets used to the heat and you don’t guzzle water, that makes you sick to the stomach! You drink heavily at sunrise and sunset. We had no air conditioners in the 1950s, we had ‘swamp boxes’ instead.
Swamp boxes only work in areas with low humidity,they will not work in high humidity locations such as Singapore.
“Swamp boxes only work in areas with low humidity, they will not work in high humidity locations such as Singapore.”
Chris, true, but what is your point? Air-conditioning does work quite well in Singapore. No matter where you live in the world humans adjust our home and workplace environments to make it more comfortable.
Take Thailand which you mentioned up thread and Malaysia. They have many high tech factories that are fully air-conditioned making all sorts of goods from computer hard drives to shoes. The days of the sweat shops is slowly going away. In the tropics of Southeast Asia most jobs are moving to the cities with fewer people engaged in agriculture and those that are use more technology to make their jobs easier. These countries are no longer 3rd world countries but 2nd world. They can easily handle 2 C warming or more. Key to adapting is low cost electricity which cannot be supplied by solar and/or wind, where nuclear and a mix of hydro, gas and coal can.
CNC, it is not true that most factories have air conditioning. Have you ever been to Jababeka, the huge industrial park outside Jakarta? It has more than 1000 factories, of which only about 15% are air conditioned. Shoes, furniture, textiles, aviation repair, basic warehousing – it is not cost effective to AC those buildings, even with low cost electricity. The margins made by the manufacturers simply do not permit it. AC is used for electronics, pharma and food processing where it is required by the processes.
you dont guzzle it, and I dont think he said that. You drink regularly and maintain hydration.
Hot and humid Singapore is one of the safest and most pleasant cities on earth to visit. Its population enjoys increasing incomes of over 6% p.a. The Singapore’s education system is one of the best in the Worl. Crime is almost totally absent. If hot weather is bad for us, the results are certainly not being seen in Singapore near the equator.
It’s called air conditioning. Singapore has overcome the adverse affects of hot weather by using AC. That in no way proves that hot weather has adverse impacts on productivity, in fact, it confirms it – else why bother with AC?
I meant to say “that in no way proves that hot weather does not have adverse impacts on productivity”
Same as cold weather affects performance. Temperature does affect performance is 100% true. I do not think Eric was saying it does not. Humans adapt to there surroundings quite easily. There is AGW but not CAGW.
Air conditioning is a not a viable option for many sectors, it’s a matter of economics.
I saw a study that says the climate is going to change big time on November 8th. Coal miners will be back to work, the Alaska pipe line is going to get filled up for another 50yrs, and the fracking on federal lands will keep us supplied with low cost energy. Romania is entirely underlain by hydrocarbon shales and most other countries have resources of it. Yes we will eventually be needing another source of energy but this WILL be nuclear, maybe in a half a century fusion energy. Predicting nuclear is so bloody obvious that it is a trivial forecast.
Democrats are “…going to make us less educated, unproductive, violent,…”
As they turn more and more neomarxbrotherish, it would get worse. However, it is clear that so-called simple folk will stand for only so much of this and the switchover will be dramatic. Climate scientists with more of a mathematical and scientific bent (probably 5% of them) better start abandoning the elitist ship and begin producing honest climate science. The great extinction they have forecast will be themselves.