How many will die?
I have had several AGW advocates ask me about how many people will die as the seas rise. I think it was Eric (and Eric, don't feel the need to respond necessarily) who asked about the poor Bangladeshi's who will die as the seas rise. But many others have stated similar sentiments about Pacific islanders, and others. It seems that it is heartless to not do something to save those people who are going to simply stand there while the seas rise awaiting their drowning.
Well, I would like to turn the question around. How many will die because of AGW nuttery. I read a letter by Les Carter in New Scientist. After this gentleman, Les Carter says we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 70 per cent within 5 years or 'we will have blown it', he says:
"We don't 'need' more energy, we don't 'need' economic stimulus, we don't even 'need' jobs. What we do need is a stable climate" Les Carter, "Action on Climate" New Scientist April 18, 2009, p. 24
Let's start with cutting everyone's energy use by 70%. That means that farmers would have 70% less energy to grow your food. So, what does this mean? According to this site source the average American eats about 2800 calories per day (you will find higher numbers but these numbers are adjusted for spoilage and other losses, which calories, obviously aren't eaten).
Cutting our food by 70% means that we would live on 840 calories per day. Hmmm. The human body needs at least 1200 calories per day to live. Anything less than that means you are starving to death. So, what Mr. Carter is suggesting is that in order to save the world from global warming, we starve most of the world to death. What a splendid solution, Mr. Carter. After you, of course.
So, let's leave the farmers alone. I want to eat. That means that everyone else must now cut about 73% of their energy use (farmers represent 3% of the US population Source). Great. That means 73% fewer jobs. Why? Because we must stop making 73% of the automobiles (most of you will walk everywhere), we must stop making 73% of the medicines (medicines are very energy intensive chemicals. We must stop making 70% of the electricity (which, you should know, is used to pump drinkable water into your home).
Les Carter's world is a wondrous affair. No water, no cars, no lights, no jobs, and somehow poor dim-witted Les thinks he is saving the world. (I guess that old Vietnam era phrase is true--in order to save the world we must destroy it).
So, Les, [maybe we should spell it Less, in honor of his intelligence, hereinafter he will be Les(s) ], how do we buy our food when we have no jobs and thus no homes no money and no delivery system?
And this raises another question, Les(s). Do we make the farmer work for free for us? Is he supposed to be happy growing our food and only accepting his own food in return? Isn't that called slavery? Didn't millions starve in China when they tried to make all the farmers live that way, and what the Chinese found was that crop yields plummeted dramatically? (For the record, I lived in China for a while, speak mandarin and heard stories from that era--stories like eating caterpillars because there was nothing else to eat).
Great world you are leading us to Les(s).
For those worried about the state of our educational system, you should stop worrying now. The answer is in. Les(s) proves how abysmal is the education in critical thinking. Les(s) seems not to know that the world has never ever had a stable climate and the desire to have one is due to the propaganda put out by the Holophobic Holocene deniers who think that all of what is happening today has never ever happened in the past. In other words, it is because of the poor science education (even among scientists and the otherwise educated intelligentsia). They don't know about what has happened in the past because there is a YEC-like tendency on the part of Holocene deniers to ignore what has happened merely 5000 years ago when the climate was hotter, the alpine and Norwegian glaciers were melted, when the Antarctic Ice shelves were collapsed, etc.
see Holophobic fear and Holocene Denial Syndrome
So, does any global warming advocate think he can do without 70% of his energy?