Unbelievable:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ing-in-germany
Printable View
Unbelievable:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ing-in-germany
Remember folks, Climate Change is just a hoax....:picard:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...h=67aecbc21396Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
"There has been 92% decline in the decadal death toll from natural disasters since its peak in the 1920s, according to the International Disaster Database. In that decade, 5.4 million people died from natural disasters. In the 2010s, 400,000 did."
Just to put some of your fear mongering in perspective.
I don't know if you noticed, but there have also been advances in disaster preparedness and response, so that's an idiotic benchmark to look at. And at least in NL one of the reasons this isn't even worse is because they learned from previous floods, and improved things like flood planes, how nature is managed around the rivers etc. So you're using numbers that show the problem isn't so big, while the numbers are relatively low because action was taken.
Up to 81 deaths in Germany and 14 in Belgium, I read.
How big of an asshole do you have to be to hate big government and it's regulations, codes, response agencies, etc...yet ignore all that good when posting something this goddamn idiotic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I'm sorry I know we're speaking informally, but, medically speaking, there's a big difference between being an asshole and being a dumbass, even though there's often an overlap and the same organ is involved in both issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Note that your article and the analyses it cites make absolutely zero effort to measure any change in storm intensities. It instead relies solely on "normalizing" the economic damage causes. And it is very easy, when "normalizing" data, to just smooth out real change and "accidentally" replace what you're supposedly measuring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Not sure if real :o
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E6bxurGX...pg&name=medium
shopped
I'm a bit surprised, no shocked at the situation in Germany. You'd expect them to be better prepared.
Fear mongering is about the impact to someone Fuzzy. Do you think the average person on the street things they are more or less likely to die from natural disaster than in the past based on the sky is falling reporting that has been ginned out?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
And what is the impact? Not just the obvious personal impact but the externalities and the higher costs required to effectively prevent or alternatively recover from more intense weather phenomena? The studies your article cited indicated that, once normalized for the changes in more value being vulnerable, storms were not causing more damage than before, that it was about the same. Why is it about the same, normalized, when the reducaed death tolls indicate we've clearly become a lot better at dealing with these. Shouldn't the damage also be dropping?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
More people living on the coast, buildings being more complex and costly to build in general, etc. Now back to my question which you ignored - do you think people are aware that they are less likely to die from natural disasters today than in the past? And if you don't think they realize this do you think it is because of the fear mongering from the media?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
You think people being more willing to live on the coastline in buildings that are safer than they have ever been is a sign that people fear dying in natural disasters :bulb:
Stop citing articles you refuse to even read. Normalizing for exactly that is the basis for them insisting storms and the damage they cause hadn't gotten worse in the 1st place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
How is anyone supposed to evaluate to what degree people were aware of their odds to die in natural disasters 100 years ago? And without that knowledge, how are we supposed to make a comparison?Quote:
Now back to my question which you ignored - do you think people are aware that they are less likely to die from natural disasters today than in the past? And if you don't think they realize this do you think it is because of the fear mongering from the media?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Isn't it amazing how quickly Lewk has pivoted to preservation of life being all that matters while property is inconsequential? Truly a big-L miracle. http://theworldforgotten.com/images/...n_rolleyes.gif
The flooding didn't happen on the coast. The state where it happened doesn't even have a coast.
Climate is always changing. Earth has been inhabitable during most of its history. This article shows the chronology.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
https://www.rankia.com/blog/comstar/...que-hoy-no-hay
Do you remember Dorian? Models predicted it would hit Alabama, but it did not. It had lost energy and bounced against the coast. Why? Moving a huge hurricane generates drag that dissipates energy, causing a terminal velocity. Thermodynamics is not enough. Drag is aerodynamics. If we used thermodynamics only, the age of Earth would be a few million years.
The only evidence of climate change we have is a videogame that models sources of heat, but not mechanisms to dissipate energy. Obviously it will show heating.
Reminds me a story of a Latin American president. A farmer got to set an appointment with the president because train killed a cow. He was going to ask for reparations. So the president asked him. "Did the cow got in the way of the train or did the train went after the cow?".Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir