Now there's something to argue. Acclimatization does not mean we can exceed our upper lethal temperature limit, or that we can adapt to less drinking water brought to the equatorial regions which will experience desertification moving ever northward. It's happening already along the Mediterranean.
No it doesn't mean that, but so far no one has reached the upper limit. And we won't likely do so, since when the climate warms, it stays essentially the same at the equatorial regions, and the farther north you go, the more the increase in temps. And last I heard the Sahara is shrinking.
Of course the extremes will kill people. Yet again, the point should be, to decrease both.
Nice if we could, but without a lot of heating and air conditioning in the appropriate places, it ain't gonna happen that way.
We shouldn't be appeased that the deaths in heat may be balanced by fewer deaths due to cold.
Perhaps not, but we should definitely be appeased if fewer deaths due to cold are much greater than more deaths due to heat.
There are studies which have shown increasing pressure on farmers leading to increases in suicide.
I recall reading something in that vein about farmers. However, it doesn't cancel out the book. And as for this debate, if it were all that important, and I required a good mark, I would do the work required. As it is, I have been absorbing information since long before you were born and I didn't keep notes. Difficult as this may be to believe, you aren't all that important to me.
We were talking about chronic health effects, you said they would be unchanged. I asked if you were an epidemiologist and you responded with epidemics, which are acute conditions, not chronic.
You ask if I'm an epidemiologist and then are surprised that I followed with a comment on epidemics??? As I said, you started it.
Quite right, instead you said any adverse health effects would be trivial because of what we've already gained,
I said that the benefits greatly outweigh the purported bad heath effects by many orders of magnitude. This is absolutely true. Then I said it seems rather a trivial concern,
compared to the benefits derived from all that energy usage. It's a matter of
comparison. If warming causes 10 deaths, but 10000 are saved by the use of fossil fuels, then those deaths are trivial by comparison. This does not mean that any one death, or any 10 deaths in themselves are trivial. If you can't see the distinction, you have comprehension problems.
you said (incorrectly) that lives are saved because of the warm/cold related deaths changing,
More lives are saved by warming that are taken. That equates to lives saved.
you asked if we expected the life expectancy to be halved (perhaps this is the level where it is no longer trivial?)
Since the benefits resulted in a doubling of life expectancy, for the detriment of warming to cancel the benefit, life expectancy would have to be halved. What about that can't you comprehend?
When I asked about one of your other strawmen, the first time you asked if I thought halving of life expectancy was going to happen. That is when I called your remarks callous.
You tried to make the (purported impending) health effects sound serious. In order for them to be more serious than the benefit they would have to cancel them out. It's a valid question.
So you never directly said that a lowering of life expectancy isn't serious, you said or rather implied it would only be serious if it were cut by half. Much worse.
Oh knock it off! I neither said nor implied any such thing. This is what I said
A trend that decreases life expectantly (obesity for example) should indeed be treated seriously. However, a forecast that the very thing that doubled life expectancy will now lessen it somewhat should be examined in context.
and that was the tenor of my entire remarks on the subject. It's pathetic that you have to resort to this kind of nonsense.
You are getting so tiresome.
