The Gargantuan Lie That Is Collapsing the Climate

Post by tejohnso » Sat, Aug 08, 2026, 1:55 PM UTC

antonvs wrote: post #188

tejohnso wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The report does include a >50% human mortality extreme category and the author of the article is referring to a separate report suggesting 3°C is much more likely than expected. I think it's pretty reasonable to think that an extreme climate would cause extreme mortality. The report is pretty confusing to digest. But because you think that particular consequence is overstated in the article, you're suggesting that th…

> I think it's pretty reasonable to think that an extreme climate would cause extreme mortality. Classic equivocation fallacy on the word “extreme” in two different contexts. If our arguments are so transparently wrong, it makes it easier to dismiss climate change. > So, are you suggesting that we actually have plenty of time to deal with climate change As Babbage put it, I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind o…

Post by yorwba » Sat, Aug 08, 2026, 2:39 PM UTC

b112 wrote: post #195

yorwba wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nowadays, a farmer who can't grow crops anymore doesn't necessarily have to find a farm elsewhere, but could also move to a nearby city and work in a factory. That option is enticing enough for many that they'll choose it even when their farm is doing fine. Agricultural employment is generally on a downward trend. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS?most_rec... You may wonder where that city is going…

Canada expand agriculture. Where? Certainly not to land up north. Growing seasons are bracketed by more than just land and temperature. It's also bracketed by sunlight. Very little will grow north. (22 hour long summer days for a one month period doesn't equate to six months of sunlight half the day. It just doesn't work that way.)

Post by simmerup » Sat, Aug 08, 2026, 4:36 PM UTC

mvdtnz wrote: post #175

tejohnso wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The report does include a >50% human mortality extreme category and the author of the article is referring to a separate report suggesting 3°C is much more likely than expected. I think it's pretty reasonable to think that an extreme climate would cause extreme mortality. The report is pretty confusing to digest. But because you think that particular consequence is overstated in the article, you're suggesting that th…

> I think it's pretty reasonable to think that an extreme climate would cause extreme mortality. Is this the standard of evidence we want to use to develop policies that will upend economies and impact the lives of billions of people? "It sounds about right"?

Post by b112 » Sat, Aug 08, 2026, 4:40 PM UTC

yorwba wrote: post #203

b112 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canada expand agriculture. Where? Certainly not to land up north. Growing seasons are bracketed by more than just land and temperature. It's also bracketed by sunlight. Very little will grow north. (22 hour long summer days for a one month period doesn't equate to six months of sunlight half the day. It just doesn't work that way.)

The duration between the equinoxes is the same six months everywhere on earth. 22-hour days are balanced out by 2-hour days, not a smaller number of days with more than 12 hours of daylight. Of course plants that need, say, 10 hours of light for 9 continuous months to mature would be in trouble, but a lot more could grow closer to the poles if it were warmer. A lot more did grow closer to the poles during the Early E…

Post by simmerup » Sat, Aug 08, 2026, 4:49 PM UTC

thisisauserid wrote: post #5

> This massive lie can best be summed up as “when it comes to climate change... we have more time.” This time we have no more time but 25 years ago when we had no more time it was true? Or we've never had more time?