This is one of those “share the hell out of this on Facebook and Twitter” type posts, because it carries a clear and simple message: Greta has no idea what she is talking about.
The data in the graph is well known, from the International Disasters Database and was graphed by Bjorn Lomberg.
Thunberg made the pronouncement during her speech to the U.S. Congress this past week.
Even at 1 degree of warming we are seeing an unacceptable loss of life and livelihoods.
I’m sorry Greta, that’s just wildly wrong and not rooted in reality. It’s the worst sort of alarmism there is.
Climate does not kill, weather does. Old chart room saying.
We deal with weather every day. And somehow we can not see it warming that much. To the opposite indeed.
So if weather goes towards cooling then how come climate goes warmer ?
Roger Pielke gave a presentation a couple of days ago and Tony Heller streamed it. The question and answer session starting at ~44:30 is the most revealing, although early in the presentation, Pielke talks about being targeted by Democrats/left.
https://twitter.com/SteveSGoddard/status/1174435942578323456
Why is my previous comment still awaiting moderation? All I did was ask for a header correction on the graph due to the misspelling of catastrophe. Looks a bit sloppy to post to Twitter.
“Even at 1 degree of warming we are seeing an unacceptable loss of life and livelihoods.”
So what would be an “acceptable” loss, Greta?
Climate change saves lives
As long as it’s not re-glaciation of the NH, right?…
Greta is so thoroughly brainwashed, she actually believes her own rubbish. This also applies to many of those brainwashed climate strike zombies. We need to review the tactics that were used after WW 2 to deprogram the brainwashed German people. Hopefully it does not get to the stage of mass atrocity before people have that penny-drop moment, that moment of clarity when they see through the barrage of lies and deceit-they pick that known lie, that inconsistency or it is just too ridiculous to believe. In that moment of clarity-the light bulb moment, the Emperor is wearing no clothes. It was all a scam from day one, how could we have fallen for this rubbish.
To paraphrase Voltaire-Those that can persuade you to believe absurdities can persuade you to commit atrocities.
At the climate strike rally in Sydney, some of the placards were drifting toward advocating execution of deniers. Should have photographed them. A couple of memorable ones- Climate denial=treason. Even unicorns believe in climate change. (hello-those unicorns that believed in climate change are extinct.) My conclusion is that those believing in climate change will become extinct.
As for the graph, this is a good one to add to the totally bleeding obvious pile.
The current indoctrination of western education systems will undoubtedly advance socialism, one funeral at a time. (Got that Mosh?)
Of course, I assume you are meaning anthropogenic climate change, as climate changes constantly throughout the paleo-record.
She is just reciting what she has been told. She has a general science mentality and does not have enough intellectual mentality to realize some of the material that she had to memorize for school may not be correct.
Have you EVER tried to get a sixteen year old to recite what she has been told by adults? You really do need to brainwash them, first.
Unfortunately, as with her ‘I can see CO2’ statement, her words can be interpreted in different ways, literal or figurative, depending on one’s personal purpose.
“we are seeing an unacceptable loss of life and livelihoods.” can be taken as correct, regardless of the cause and temperatures have risen, by some measures, by one degree.
Even though there is no link between the two parts of the sentence does not mean they cannot be used to ill intent.
This would be the same practice as is used in the entire contest of words on this topic. Twist meanings, use selective data, claim models as data, use emotive words, ignore data, use bad and/or inappropriate data, ad infinitum.
The only loss of life and livelihood that has been seen have resulted from the attempts to fight so called global warming.
The warming that we have seen and are likely to see has been beneficial as is all the extra CO2 in the air.
John McClure
Greta didn’t go “nose to nose” with Congress. She went there and told them a scary story about a boogie man that she believed and encouraged them to join the hunt to capture and kill the boogie man before it kills anymore people.
When I was Greta’s age I was all for “ban the bomb”, “end the Vietnam war”, etc. Even younger I got scared to death by my teachers, who pushed Paul R Ehrlich (Population Bomb) down our throats, we would all be dead soon one way or other, the future the scientists said was quite clear. The “Doomsday Clock” (do you remember that) was shown on the BBC TV news always showing 1 minute to midnight!
At 16 the world seemed so Black and White, so easy to see wrong from right , could not understand why my father had gone to war to kill Germans, surely this was wrong.
As I got older the Black and White turned to a dirty shade of Grey, things our teachers told us turned out to be inaccurate or lies. I went Germany and most of Europe, on business and pleasure and talked to the people I met. I grew up.
My father turned into a hero who had to fight to the death to stop a great evil, from that point forward his mind was never at Peace until the day he died. I look at the war memorial in our town my family name is there, young men of my family who I did not get a chance to know. I have tried to live my life as best I can to make their sacrifice worthwhile, and I hope my grandson never has to make the choice of fight to the death for freedom.
So what happened to Paul R Ehrlich the academic biologist who got it all so wrong, was he shunned by the scientific community, or shrank away in disgrace? No, the great and the good of the scientific establishment elevated him to fellow of the Royal Society, you could not make it up!
+100
Thunderberg 1
“Even at at 1 degree of warming we are seeing an unacceptable loss of life and livelihoods”
— Dr. Greta Thunberg
There, fixed
Guys,
is the toxic assets that will drain the power and energy of the climateriat politicos.
Higher the toxicity, stronger the drain, and more difficult and risky the drop of such assets.
The best so far at that, it seems to be AOC and Greta…
I do not know for sure, but I think best to be patient and to a degree cheering to such as “actors”… when still pinching here and there just for fun.
Cheerful ridiculing can be quite funny and cool, at times.
cheers
Excellent! A simple and undeniable exposure of the reGretable lies being told by Greta and the Climate Catastrophe crowd. “The truth shall set you free…. Greta.”
Princess Alex (AOC) and St. Greta, the All-seeing, are quite the pair. It must be nice to be young with so much life ahead of you, and realize that you know everything there is to know. Back in the days when American citizens were still allowed to work in the construction trades in California we used to joke about getting your apprentices when they’re still young enough to know everything. Nice to see that, while history changes constantly, the human condition remains stubbornly the same.
Greta is one of the Children of the CO2rn.
Either my tri-focals are off or that label on the vertical scale says “DeaRth” , instead of (I believe) ‘death’. Some assistance would be appreciated, from younger eyes … … …
“If we care about the environment and about leaving this planet and its inhabitants with the best possible future, we actually have only one option: we all need to start seriously focusing, right now, on the most effective ways to fix global warming.”
That’s a quote from the maker of the graph (Bjorn Lomberg) which supposedly puts the young lady in her place.
The easiest way to fix “global warming” is to stop publishing fake temperature records and fake news. Because “global warming” is 100% made by politicians and the media lying to the world. The self proclaimed experts are just lying for that grant money.
Scientific Method
1. Research & data collection
2. Analysis & evaluation
3. Form conclusions
4. Implications & predictions
5. Review, critique & debate
6. Re-evaluation & reassessment
7. Repeat step #1
Scientific Method of Climate Change
1. Form conclusions
2. Fit data to conclusions
3. Fit predictions to conclusions
4. Make policy demands
5. Denounce, bully & deplatform dissenters
The 230,000 deaths from the 2004 Boxing day tsunami do not appear to be evidenced. So I’m not sure how accurate these graphs are.
Well since a tsunami is not climate related, its probably pretty accurate.
The 500,000 deaths from Cyclone Bhola in 1970 is missing, not sure why.
It does indeed. But, re “Abolition man”, there is a story about a young man who at 18 reckoned he knew everything and his father knew nothing. At 25 he said to his father,”It is amazing how much you’ve learnt in the last 7 years”.
Who was it who said “It is not not-knowing things that makes one ignorant, it is knowing things that ain’t so.” Can’t help thinking it was Mark Twain, but no evidence in Google , so source would be appreciated.
Typhoon and hurricane related deaths have dramatically dropped in recent years due to better (often mandatory) evacuation and refuge systems… this is particularly noticeable in Bangladesh.
So the reason the graph goes down? concerted action taken to avoid deaths, NOT a change in weather/climate
That is the point. That graph is all “adaptation”, and ZERO “mitigation”.
Going forward, what is the best investment? Adaptation or mitigation?
Oh, you caught the totally obvious did you? Maybe there’s hope for you yet.
“Even at 1 degree of warming we are seeing an unacceptable loss of life and livelihoods.”
That is why most people and animals live near the higher latitudes (>60 deg N or S) and not around the equator.
That is changing rapidly with the beneficial CO2 fertiliser effect.
I understood why the purveyors of AGW always predicted doom 50 years or more in the future. Few of us would be around to notice that the prediction didn’t come true. Why all of a sudden did they start making predictions that will pan out well within the reader or listener’s lifetime? This seems very risky to me. When 10 years comes and goes with not much happening climate-wise, doesn’t the whole house of cards come tumbling down? Then what? Is this just a last-ditch power grab? Is there some ingenious Alinsky-ist scheme playing out before my eyes, and I’m just too dense to see it? Most of the kids participating in the International Skip School to Protest the End of the World Day will be alive 10 years from now, mesmerized by their iPhone 20s and happily humping their sex robot partners. They’re going to remember Greta’s predictions, won’t they?
It’s the fortieth anniversary of the first climate report this year…
https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/40-years-ago-scientists-predicted-climate-change-and-hey-they-were-right-120502
Has links to their powergrabbing predictions so you can see for yourself.
It should be noted that included in the Climate-Related Deaths graph are those caused by wildfires, and this is misleading, however minor the total may be. Between 84-90% of wildfires are human-caused, and not a result of an increase in temperature. Urban sprawl, increased populations, and poor forest/fuel management are far more to blame than a warmer, drier, longer fire season.
https://www.nifc.gov/safety/safety_documents/Fatalities-by-Year.pdf
Dj, do not be so silly.
These guys have ignored to include events that will make ones you mention look like peanuts, really.
As some one else before you have mentioned, the tsunamis deaths are not included, even the Fukushima one.
Also no inclusion of the Spanish flue, or the Irish famine, or the Dark Ages, or Pompey… or if we really have to really be inclusive, no inclusion of Sodom and Gomorrah or Noah’s Flood either… 🙂
Or the extinction of Woolly Mammoth and Saber Tooth, or the extinction of the Tyrannosaurus Rex or the extinction of Dodo…
Or at the very least the massive human death through a completely insane blood bath war like the W.W.I
So when and where do you really think you can have and own the right to be selective in deciding what consist as inclusive or not in the consideration of mass death, life destruction and extinction of life in the consideration of climate?!
When you decide to cherry pick in the case of climate, you should consider that the field does really expand far and beyond your short life span experience.
In main proper meaning, the human life has really being very much improved and very much flourishing in modern time, like never before, regardless of all else…
when all there possibly to be included will still not change this simple fact.
Death is an inclusive and conclusive fact… for all those that are born in to life.
All that remains to be considered is the quality and the standard of the living, or the worthiness and the beauty of it.
Which can very easy be messed around and destroyed if stupidity and insanity ends up successfully
roosting and lording over the human affair and it’s destiny.
cheers
The PDF you linked cites zero sources. I can open Word and make one just like it and show anything I want. No matter which side you’re on you’ve gotta do WAY better than that. Seeing the quality of that PDF, the site it is on is not credible.
Wildfire acreage burned each year is about 80% (EIGHTY percent) lower than it was in the 1930s. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phw8OlN_x1E (the presenter has sources throughout the video). Climate/weather related deaths are stupidly low compared to the 1930s and 1940s, DESPITE the increased population.
For the climate/weather related deaths, you’ll want to see a Google talk titled “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels”. Basically if there was any shred of the climate hoax the video link above didn’t debunk, the Google talk will obliterate the rest.
Cheers.
“One morning in 1856, a fifteen year old Xhosa girl named Nongqawuse went with another girl to scare birds from her uncle’s crops in the fields by the sea at the Gxarha river mouth in the present day Wild Coast area of South Africa.
When she returned she said that she had seen a man, who had told her that ‘The whole community would rise from the dead; that all cattle now living must be slaughtered’.
As a result, between April 1856 and June 1857, the various sections of the Xhosa people of the Eastern Cape and the Transkei slaughtered almost all their enormous stocks of cattle and deliberately killed their crops.”
Destroy the economy and kill the cows and we will reach utopia. Amazing how perfectly parallel this story is to the AGW demands. Oh, estimates are that 40,000 to 70,000 Xhosa died.
Fascinating story. Of course if another just slightly MORE believable young girl could have CORRECTLY claimed she could see the future the Xhosa would in all probability killed Nongqawuse , being the primitive idiots that they were. But what a different outcome.
I wonder how many times the future could have been massively improved by just the death of one powerful “I predict this future” person who lead the world up a stupid path.
Today of course we (exceptions may apply) don’t go round killing people to change the future, we rely on conversation, science, facts and persuasion. Works much better. Maybe a trifle slower.
Maybe you could speed it up by trying a bit harder with the challenging though? A hard verbal challenge right in the face with plenty of publicity present could reap dividends I reckon. How close can you personally get ?