Thread by @GregoryMakles

Interesting figure if you’re trying to assess the Climate Change topic. I’ll post my comment below but look at it first and see what you make out of it /wo my bias 😅
informationisbeautiful.net/beautifulnews/…

First, note the explosion of disaster events. The description doesn’t mention it but to me it’s obvious to me we didn’t really go X80 (~5 to 400+)between 1920 and 2005.

Most likely this reflects the fast paced change in worldwide infrastructure that sees vastly more events getting properly recorded. Now realise that the same goes for all weather recordings used to assess that 2005 was warmer than 1920.

In 1920 there was practically no temp or pression recording, sea level or temp recording except in the US and a few scarce places. This remains largely true until post WWII era where station count worldwide is doing ~X100 as well as satellites added to the mix.

Second, that graph also tells us ppl deaths dropped dramatically - even more so if you consider the demographic explosion of the world’s population into that era as well ad the fact that it’s likely a better % of death get reported now than in 1920.

This is a key element of context for the people worried than ten years from now we’ll be doomed as a species if actions isn’t taken. The threat of climate change is typically described as:
- sea level rise (flooding)
- drought
- increase in extreme weather events (hurricanes..)

All of those are accounted for in that graph. So what that graph tells us is that while media, politics and in a more measured way IPCC says the physical threat of global warming to our lives increase, it actually decreased in an historical proportion.

Think about it.

To this day, climate has never been less of threat to mankind.

And the claim that it’s species threatening implies that if you put your phone on the floor backward, blue bars indicating climate induced casualties will have to jump two feet above your phone *simply to even out the 82M/year growth*.

In other words, the claim that we’re threatened, as a species, by climate change induced environmental hazards isn’t based on an observed trend. Instead it requires some dramatic shift in trend to happen.

I see only two possible take away from this. Either our estimates of the changes happening in climate have been exaggerated, or this exemplifies the Adam’s Law of Slow Moving Disasters.
scottadamssays.com/2013/04/15/fac…

This rule invented by @ScottAdamsSays postulates that any impending disaster that’s moving slowly enough, we human are good at managing.

@ScottAdamsSays This doesn’t mean it’s a wrong idea to monitor our impact as a ridiculously successful species on the environment we need to prosper. But it definitively is one to let fear of climate risk hampers your happiness or ambitions or hopes for the future.

@ScottAdamsSays Every generation has its battles to win and developing a sustainable lifestyle for the generations to come is one of ours - and this goes way further than CO2 emissions considerations.
But it’s no different - and frankly much easier to deal with, than what our ancestors had.

@ScottAdamsSays As in, it’s easier to deal with changing our infrastructures, lifestyles and/or technology than to dodge bombs, survive pandemics or starvation.

It’s still no small feat.

But wouldn’t life be boring if everything was already solved?