If people used their cars and planes less when they can, and bought far fewer unnecessary goods it would make a huge difference regardless of where they live, but the most impact can come from the most egregious offenders who are western consumers.

As i asked before I ask again: if you identify in western consumers the main cause of climate change, and you think climate change is a big threat and a very important priority, why don't you ask to ban immigration into western countries from poorer countries?

Every time someone moves to the west from a poor country his emissions shoot up a lot

That might be true but immigration is needed to pay for public pensions. The number of immigrants is tiny compared to the number of middle class people driving SUVs, taking flights and buying lots of unnecessary crap, and they take more public transport and buy less crap because as you keep reminding us, they are poor on average.

Don’t China and India contribute most to the climate change problem?

If there is less money for public pensions, you lower the pensions which means less consumption of the elders which means .. fewer emissions.

If half the over60 that take long vacations can't afford that anymore, isn't that EXACTLY what you want to accomplish wrt emission reductions?

We should remind that it was THEIR generation to emit without any consideration for the future so they should suffer the costs of emission reductions, not young people right?

Also, if you severely cut healthcare they die sooner, you need to pay fewer pensions for fewer years, and when they die they don't emit anymore.

They should need to sell their big houses (elders living in huge houses it's a lot of waster CO2 right? why subsidize that exactly?), deplete savings, and so on as a class, why do you want to "pay their pensions" to begin with?

Why should they live far better than all elders who ever lived in human history exactly?

What do you mean exactly with "tiny number of immigrants", many countries have 15%+ foreign born, + the children of the immigrants. What would be UK population if you only count those with 4 british (or 1st world countries) grandparents? 40m? 45m? instead of 66m.

Disasters include all geophysical, meteorological and climate events including earthquakes, volcanic activity, landslides,
drought, wildfires, storms, and flooding. Decadal figures are measured as the annual average over the subsequent ten-year
period.



https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters



Note that global population in 1920 was only 2 billion, so not only did 14x as many people die in that decade from natural disasters, it was 56x as many when expressed as a % of the total population of the world.

This isn't to suggest that natural disasters are getting more tame, of course, but simply as our technology and manufacturing capabilities increase we build stronger, better buildings that can withstand natural disasters. So even if natural disasters increase as a result of climate change, if man's adaptive capabilities increase at the same rate, then deaths from natural disasters should remain quite low as a % of total human casualties. And despite the hysteria surrounding this subject, there doesn't seem to be much hard evidence that natural disasters are increasing significantly in intensity or frequency. Just a lot of speculation and hand waving. Furthermore, if increased global temperatures do substantially impact the climate, there is absolutely no way of knowing how many natural disasters were prevented or weakened because of changes in climate. How do you measure and observe what didn't happen? Of course no scientist would ever begin to even consider that, since this is a forbidden subject and they would immediately be liable a quack, denier, and apostate before being fired and unpersoned by the global warming cultists.



A lot has been made of 'wet bulb' temperatures, although it seems to me we've already figured out how to defeat high temperatures (it's called air conditioning). But it is the cold that will really kill you. Even in places you wouldn't think of as having a chilly climate, like Australia or Brazil, deaths from the cold vastly outnumber deaths from heat.




Frankly, I am entirely convinced that a few degrees warming will be a net positive for humanity and the globe. The cold sucks. While things like heat waves or flooding as a result of climate change could pose issues, and we may need to rethink immigration restrictions or increase assistance to people in the third world who are the most vulnerable to changes, it is equally important that the engine of industrial progress keep running.

The new fraud science is in fact "attribution", ie the epistemologically flawed attempt to claim that a specific event was caused by climate change.

Methods vary and there are various layers of complexity used to make it close to impossible for people not in that field to understand assumptions in detail (and so to counter the whole logical edifice of such exercise) but the main idea is you build a synthetic counterfactual.

You make up, invent, concoct how the world would have been without extra warming using unprovable assumptions and generalizing observations in some areas that didn't warm as much as others as if that was what would have happened everywhere ex-warming, you pick and choose among this plethora of options whatever works best to allow you to claim what you want to claim, and you get paid to research this by the people who want to push the narrative.

So you end up with a growing number of completly unsubstantiated claims about damaging events being causally related to climate change, all thanks to the above fraudulent, unscientifical series of attempts.

To be clear this is exactly what they did with covid infection models, and DPI efficacy papers. They made up a counterfactual they couldn't observe based on unprovable assumptions and claimed that masks achieved X, distancing achieved Y, school closures achieved Z.

This is what *already happened* according to the European Environment Agency

Important figure is on the left ofc



https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysi...n-temperatures

Mainly because unlike you I think people dying prematurely is bad.

Many pensioners here aren’t well off and fear the next cold winter will finish them off due to sky high energy prices imposed by privatised utility companies that people were told would reduce prices through competition it which anyone with a functioning brain could see would do the opposite given the lack of regulation.

The maximum state pension here is about £8000 p.a., one of the lowest in Europe.

69% of over65 households have a networth over 300k pounds.

I think that even in a super-leftist welfare state model the idea of working poors subsidizing the healthcare of those people in any way is morally horrific

Over 65 households are the richest age bracket in the UK, and close to them there are the people who are going to retire soon, those you want to help by importing pension payers



High heating costs is what you would want to reduce emissions btw, obviously, not sure how you can lament that as a negative. The poors needing to wear a sweater at home 24/7 because they can't afford to heat properly is a big way to reduce emissions.

You're forgetting about the cost of elderly care, which people have to pay for themselves, which their savings are for.

They should all pay with savings and the NHS be accessible only to the destitute. It's incredible a single public pound is spent on healthcare on anyone who has significant savings.

Everytime someone dies leaving an inheritance and you have paid for healthcare for that person , taxpayers are being scammed and money is being forcibly redistributed upward, the literal opposite of the leftist ethos. I don't understand how you can defend that.

You can even just keep a tab of healthcare expenses without asking anything while alive then the state becomes a creditor from the inheritance assets (with interests)

I don't justify inheritance at all. I'd raise inheritance tax to the max possible if the wealthy didn't have simple ways of not paying it.

tax people the same no matter how much they leeched from others right, gonna generate optimal behavior for sure

You really, really don't understand the people of the UK

Florida flooding puts DeSantis' delusional climate agenda in focus

In May, DeSantis took steps to deprioritize climate change resilience.

Flood warnings are in effect for more than 8 million Floridians and Ron just
vetoed funding for stormwater projects to reserve money for a rainy day,

Ron, it’s raining.

downstream impact of giving arrogant and/or willfully ignorant ideologues power. DeSantis is one example

Donald Trump, a Floridian in his own right, suggested last week that the
only consequence of rising sea levels would be more beachfront property.

https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/re...nda-rcna157032