Thread: Okay, I want to ask a question.

Before I do, I want to make it abundantly clear I am not, repeat NOT, disputing the Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis, nor attempting to be snide, sarcastic, inflammatory, or any of the other things you folks have got a sensitivity to, okay?

My question is this: You people are pretty certain global warming is a killer, right? In the event of death, a certificate is usually issued for legal purposes. Such certificates generally list the CAUSE of death, so, WHEN(notice I was nice and did NOT say IF) AGW does kill someone, will it be a case of homicide, suicide, accident, or some other?

Death certificate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If and when it can be proved that was the cause, it still would not be listed on the certificate, since it would not be the proximate cause of death.

Depending on the dircumstances, it could be any of those you mentioned.

Corrected typo in "listed"

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

I want to make it abundantly clear I am not, repeat NOT, disputing the Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis, nor attempting to be snide, sarcastic, inflammatory, or any of the other things you folks have got a sensitivity to, okay?

You missed out trite and irrelevant.

How so? If driving SUV when found dead, suicide, but if found on skateboard dead, homicide or accident? What circumstances?

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

I want to make it abundantly clear I am not, repeat NOT, disputing the Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis, nor attempting to be snide, sarcastic, inflammatory, or any of the other things you folks have got a sensitivity to, okay?

You missed out trite and irrelevant.

OK, not trying for those either. Thanks for mentioning them. How could it be "trite" though, when to the best of my knowledge, this question has not been asked before? As for relevance, it should be relevant to the Medical Examiner, heirs, insurance companies, and CDC, if not to you, dear colleague- yet they are not commenting, and YOU are, hmmmm....

The technique you are using here is to choose an irrelevant aspect of a serious topic and berate your opponent (implicitly) for their alleged position in or attitude to the matter. This is a hackneyed approach - most certainly trite. At some time in the future it is to be hoped you will appreciate the benefits of maturity. Perhaps, though, you could do your growing up elsewhere.

Again, you respond to supposedly "irrelevant" question, but do not answer. It is an aspect of mortality, technical, arguably, "trivial"? Not so much, as stated in #5. I take no position one way or the other on this thread, only pose the question- I am not responsible for what YOU choose to project into it.

Now will you stop trying to assassinate my character long enough to respond to the inquiry honestly?

There are, according to the hypothesis, substantial numbers of such cases looming on the horizon, so the question is of some urgency. Moreover, if we cannot definitively ascribe the cause of death to global warming, how can we evaluate the effectiveness of our efforts to mitigate this phenomenon?

Originally Posted by arthur

My question is this: You people are pretty certain global warming is a killer, right? In the event of death, a certificate is usually issued for legal purposes. Such certificates generally list the CAUSE of death, so, WHEN(notice I was nice and did NOT say IF) AGW does kill someone, will it be a case of homicide, suicide, accident, or some other?

Any of those will be possible, and have their examples - the "some other" category, in particular, promises to be very large; including as it will a wide variety of natural causes on top of pestilence, famine, and war.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by arthur

My question is this: You people are pretty certain global warming is a killer, right? In the event of death, a certificate is usually issued for legal purposes. Such certificates generally list the CAUSE of death, so, WHEN(notice I was nice and did NOT say IF) AGW does kill someone, will it be a case of homicide, suicide, accident, or some other?

Any of those will be possible, and have their examples - the "some other" category, in particular, promises to be very large; including as it will a wide variety of natural causes on top of pestilence, famine, and war.

Yeah, war is pretty much a case of mass homicide, not much ambiguity there. Thank you for refraining from personal comments, have a nice evening, see you soon, iceman.

Let's just stick to the obvious ones shall we. The doctor or emergency personnel will state the proximate cause. Others will analyse incidence of certain items and attribute them (or not) to underlying causes. Maybe climate change, maybe failure of vaccination programs or other government services.

Causes of death likely to raise the level of interest.
1. Heatstroke.
2. Drowning.
3. Fire.
4. Thirst/dehydration.
5. Starvation.
6. Diseases associated with climate changes and consequent shifts of animal or other vectors. Malaria, dengue fever, Murray Valley encephalitis, Ross River virus and several dozen others that are currently restricted in geographic range.

warfare....

Yeah ..... sigh. Warfare.

Originally Posted by adelady

Yeah ..... sigh. Warfare.

And what wars so far are known to have been caused by the AGW effect? To digress a bit, but it has been mentioned in several posts now, so possibly invites further scrutiny. Mind you, now, not every fatality in war is necessarily a case of homicide, as history informs us that disease often accounts for more casualties than actual combat. The news tells us that suicide is also an increased risk among veterans.

EDIT: On the day following this last observation, the New York Times published information documenting record numbers of suicides of United States service members in 2011. Violent sexual assaults are up as well- all of this despite increased emphasis on suicide prevention and drug and alcohol counseling by the Army. This issue will be taken up for discussion on another thread as it is of interest but rather too far off topic for further consideration here.

Particular thanks to adelady for her specific comments which warrant further investigation.

There's been some research in that questoin, several of which have demonstrated the relationship between climate, the ability to produce food, and warfare.

One study, looking at the pacific oscillation studies, perhaps put it best:
"Precipitation, temperature, sunlight, humidity and ecological extremes can adversely influence both agrarian and non-agrarian economies. In addition, ENSO variations affect natural disasters, such as tropical cyclones, and trigger disease outbreaks. All of these have adverse economic effects, such as loss of income or increasing food prices, and it is thought that economic shocks can generate civil conflict through a variety of pathways. Furthermore, altered environmental conditions stress the human psyche, sometimes leading to aggressive behaviour. We hypothesize that El Niño can simultaneously lead to any of these adverse economic and psychological effects, increasing the likelihood of conflict."
http://junksciencecom.files.wordpres...-war-study.pdf

Studies which like the unusually strong variations in climate to the eventual and protracted end of the Roman Empire:
" Wet and warm summers occurred during periods of Roman and medieval prosperity. Increased climate variability from ~AD 250 to 600 coincided with the demise of the Western Roman Empire and the turmoil of the Migration Period"

And later: "Around 1300 C.E., on the other hand, a cold snap combined with wetter summers coincides with widespread famines and plague that wiped out nearly half of Europe's population by 1347. " And since you asked about "wars," the huge disruption in food production being one of the underlying causes of the Hundred Years War.
2500 Years of European Climate Variability and Human Susceptibility

In another study researchers examined more recent changes over the past few hundred years, food prices, population and number of wars.
"Further analyses show that cooling impeded agricultural production, which brought about a series of serious social problems, including price inflation, then successively war outbreak, famine, and population decline successively. The findings suggest that worldwide and synchronistic war–peace, population, and price cycles in recent centuries have been driven mainly by long-term climate change. The findings also imply that social mechanisms that might mitigate the impact of climate change were not significantly effective during the study period. Climate change may thus have played a more important role and imposed a wider ranging effect on human civilization than has so far been suggested."
Global climate change, war, and population decline in recent human history

Another good example shows the impacts on sensitive areas, such as probably ended the Anasazi peoples.
" The periods of wetness and dryness they identified coincided with dramatic changes in the Anasazi's way of life."
Climate Changes Coincide with Cultural Shifts in Ancient American Southwest: Scientific American

There's a pretty strong case that the very long droughts in the horn of Africa have contributed to the violence, famines and and establishment of terror organizations willing to exploit the situation over the past few decades.

Pentagon think tanks have released two reports in the past ten years that in their view listed climate change as the number one destabilizing cause that would lead to warfare and risk to US National security. (both were mostly ignored by Congress and the White house).

There are already a number of places where there are arguments between states or ven just regions about the use of water from major rivers. If those rivers start to dry up because of changes in rainfall patterns then these conflicts could escalate. (Apart from the possibility of deaths more directly attributable to the lack of fresh water: disease and hunger.)

Also, loss of water in some areas or flooding in others may cause mass migrations of populations. Never guaranteed to be entirely peaceful...

Migration? This one about Mexico should be of particular interest to USAnians.

"Depending on the warming scenarios used and adaptation levels assumed, with other factors held constant, by approximately the year 2080, climate change is estimated to induce 1.4 to 6.7 million adult Mexicans (or 2% to 10% of the current population aged 15–65 y) to emigrate as a result of declines in agricultural productivity alone. "

Linkages among climate change, crop yields and Mexico
MEXICO: Climate Change Drives Migration - IPS ipsnews.net

Arthur - "Moreover, if we cannot definitively ascribe the cause of death to global warming, how can we evaluate the effectiveness of our efforts to mitigate this phenomenon?"

McMichael et al in Lancet, estimating 160,000 excess deaths in the single year of 2000AD attributable to climate change is an incomplete attempt to quantify such impacts. The use of statistical methodology is clearly an essential tool, as it is for most epidemiology; that excess deaths due to global warming will be a proportion of deaths from more specific causes such as listed above by others makes the problem difficult. That seems obvious but it's not a problem unique to this specific issue; epidemiology routinely has to tease apart the various factors. The human element - conflict particularly - makes quantification as well as attribution difficult but it doesn't require great precision in either to work out that reducing the climate impacts by reducing emissions will reduce such impacts and that efforts that do so will be effective and worthwhile.

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Moreover, if we cannot definitively ascribe the cause of death to global warming, how can we evaluate the effectiveness of our efforts to mitigate this phenomenon?

Because climate change is not defined in terms of the number of deaths it will cause. It is defined in terms of the effect on the climate. That is an objective fact that can be measured. The impacts of that on different aspects of human life can also be measured, with different degrees of accuracy.

Yes and until that certificate comes, we will do nothing about it.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

There's been some research in that questoin, several of which have demonstrated the relationship between climate, the ability to produce food, and warfare.

One study, looking at the pacific oscillation studies, perhaps put it best:
"Precipitation, temperature, sunlight, humidity and ecological extremes can adversely influence both agrarian and non-agrarian economies. In addition, ENSO variations affect natural disasters, such as tropical cyclones, and trigger disease outbreaks. All of these have adverse economic effects, such as loss of income or increasing food prices, and it is thought that economic shocks can generate civil conflict through a variety of pathways. Furthermore, altered environmental conditions stress the human psyche, sometimes leading to aggressive behaviour. We hypothesize that El Niño can simultaneously lead to any of these adverse economic and psychological effects, increasing the likelihood of conflict."
http://junksciencecom.files.wordpres...-war-study.pdf

Studies which like the unusually strong variations in climate to the eventual and protracted end of the Roman Empire:
" Wet and warm summers occurred during periods of Roman and medieval prosperity. Increased climate variability from ~AD 250 to 600 coincided with the demise of the Western Roman Empire and the turmoil of the Migration Period"

And later: "Around 1300 C.E., on the other hand, a cold snap combined with wetter summers coincides with widespread famines and plague that wiped out nearly half of Europe's population by 1347. " And since you asked about "wars," the huge disruption in food production being one of the underlying causes of the Hundred Years War.
2500 Years of European Climate Variability and Human Susceptibility

In another study researchers examined more recent changes over the past few hundred years, food prices, population and number of wars.
"Further analyses show that cooling impeded agricultural production, which brought about a series of serious social problems, including price inflation, then successively war outbreak, famine, and population decline successively. The findings suggest that worldwide and synchronistic war–peace, population, and price cycles in recent centuries have been driven mainly by long-term climate change. The findings also imply that social mechanisms that might mitigate the impact of climate change were not significantly effective during the study period. Climate change may thus have played a more important role and imposed a wider ranging effect on human civilization than has so far been suggested."
Global climate change, war, and population decline in recent human history

Another good example shows the impacts on sensitive areas, such as probably ended the Anasazi peoples.
" The periods of wetness and dryness they identified coincided with dramatic changes in the Anasazi's way of life."
Climate Changes Coincide with Cultural Shifts in Ancient American Southwest: Scientific American

There's a pretty strong case that the very long droughts in the horn of Africa have contributed to the violence, famines and and establishment of terror organizations willing to exploit the situation over the past few decades.

Pentagon think tanks have released two reports in the past ten years that in their view listed climate change as the number one destabilizing cause that would lead to warfare and risk to US National security. (both were mostly ignored by Congress and the White house).

Okay, I see a lot of conflicts past and future attributed to "climate change" but none so far SPECIFICALLY attributed to AGW. Must be harder to find those, but thanks for the effort. Israel and its neighbors have been at odds for decades over a shortage of water but as far as I can tell, each side blames the other, rather than AGW. Thanks again for the search to find a single documented example.

Actually, in the Great Depression there were food riots, so if there are shortages of foodstuffs definitely attributed to AGW, fatalities from these disturbances would be linked as well. Conflicts within nations can kill just as surely as those between nations.

Originally Posted by Japith

Yes and until that certificate comes, we will do nothing about it.

NOTHING? Well, Hansen and Gore are doing something about it, acquiring honors and notoriety in the process. "Profits of doom", so to speak. Interestingly, Hansen seems to be a nuclear power advocate to some degree.

James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


As usual, we have digressed quite a bit from the initial question. It has been an enjoyable journey and your participation has been refreshing, I wish you all well.

Yeah like you'll leave. Like any good pestilence, you'll be back, and back, and back....

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Yeah like you'll leave. Like any good pestilence, you'll be back, and back, and back....

And how is this related to the topic? Yeah, I was going to quit the thread, it seems played out, but I made an attribution error in one of the posts, so came back to fix it, and noticed(surprise) a gratuitous personal attack directed against me, unrelated to anything herein discussed. BORING. Here's a thought- you guys who have nothing better to discuss than little old me can start an "Everybody Hates Arthur" Thread and confine your crap to that.

Arthur, specific to the questions you have raised -

Those people in positions of public trust such as elected representatives have an obligation to seek and rely on the expert science based advice that they have at their disposal. When a serious danger to the future prosperity and security of the people who's interests they have responsibility for has repeatedly been made known to them by leading advisory agencies such as (for the USA) the National Academy of Sciences - in agreement with all the specific scientific institutions that study relevant phenomena (NOAA, NCAR, NASA, NSIDC etc) they have an obligation to take it seriously. For such representatives to dismiss and ignore such advice and even go as far as deliberately seek to undermine public trust in such scientific agencies, for the sake of the short term gain of particular commercial or ideological interests, is a profound betrayal of the position of trust that they hold. It makes them culpable.

Politicians who have taken active parts in BS climate science denial campaigns may forever remain above legal challenge for doing so but are not above harsh criticism. Politicians who are choosing to promote BS about the climate problem are adding to the climate change death toll and are engaged is something profoundly different from simply using the right to freedom of ideas and expression to promote different, legitimate views. They are promoting dangerous lies and what they are doing is more than merely dangerously irresponsible.

It's like having a coalition of Japanese business people undermining public trust in the Tsunami warning service because public fear of future tsunamis is bad for their businesses. For elected representatives - who's obligations go further and wider than simply to further those narrow business interests - to go along with such a campaign is a profound betrayal of trust. Deliberately using their persuasive influence and the trust that voters have in their "good" judgment to promote those business interest over and against the interests of the wider Japanese public would be about as low as you can go; in my opinion they would be committing crimes against humanity. In the case of the climate problem the death toll is likely - based on a lot of sound science and logical reasoning - to far exceed any known tsunami; it will just take a lot longer to do so, with little or no real chance of repair and recovery afterwards.

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Yeah like you'll leave. Like any good pestilence, you'll be back, and back, and back....

And how is this related to the topic? Yeah, I was going to quit the thread, it seems played out, but I made an attribution error in one of the posts, so came back to fix it, and noticed(surprise) a gratuitous personal attack directed against me, unrelated to anything herein discussed. BORING. Here's a thought- you guys who have nothing better to discuss than little old me can start an "Everybody Hates Arthur" Thread and confine your crap to that.

You're the one who suggested you were leaving. So my prediction it was not true has already been proven correct...

I already addressed the OP, quite succinctly in post #2 in this thread.

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

a gratuitous personal attack directed against me, .

I think you'll find none of the attacks are gratuitous and they are all really directed at your posting style, not at you. However, we can take this up in more detail in your proposed "I Hate Arthur Angler" thread, once you initiate it.

I thought most of the comments were on topic - even though I think the tone of leading comment was a bit snide and inflammatory.

Arthur, you could, even now, address the content of the majority of comments which stuck to answering the questions you raised.

The OP was a good question, but when one considers the level of climate change denial that exists today...... I would assume whatever is put on the death certificates would as made up as the various denial arguments are now.

How should anyone here hope to predict what kinds of AGW-as-myth-affirming falsehoods the certificate issuers will dream up? That requires us to step inside their magical make-believe world, and try to make sense of it. Not a bad idea, but seriously taxing for a scientific person.