Sigma's euphemistic name for "plastic"

On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 22:54:34 -0500, Ron C wrote:

On 1/6/2017 10:44 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 20:05:49 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article wrednUseBPwWv-3FnZ2dnUU7-
,
says...

On 2017-01-06 17:20, Eric Stevens wrote:

There is no dispute about that. There is dispute about the cause.
There is considerable pressure to blame it all on mankind and one of
the techniques that is used is to attempt to minimise the historical
temperature variation. Denying the existence of the Medieval, Roman
and Minoan warm periods is but one of the techniques.

Nobody denies their existence - they question that they are relevant to
what has happened over the past 200 years.

If you look at the population change and carbon emissions over the
history of mankind on the planet, to not ascribe a significant amount of
atmospheric warming to human emissions over the past 2 centuries is
nothing short of willful ignorance.

Not only has the industrial age allowed economies to flourish, but also
enabled the population to explode. The same 200 years of emissions
output correspond to human population exploding from less than 1B to
over 7B. All while using carbon emitting fuels like there was no
tomorrow. (oops).

The naysayers desperately search for those warm periods in the past
while ignoring rate-of-change over short periods as we've experienced
over the last century as CO2 and other gases buildup. Now with
permafrost failure in the north, massive amounts of methane are leaking
and it is a far worse GH gas than CO2 - the feedback effect will simply
accelerate things. Of course those deniers will point to that as a
"natural cause" while ignoring the system that exposed all that
permafrost locked gas in the first place. Such is human folly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUwm...ature=youtu.be
Puts the human population aspect clearly as a function of time.

And a few years down the road the glaciation
trigger will be pulled and everybody will be
wishing for the global warming back.

The Russians consider we may be heading for another mini-ice-age

Via intelligence gathered by a GOP hack? G
==
Later...
Ron C cynic-in-training

No, by what they have published over the last 20 years.

That's why they did not at first sign up to the Kyoto protocol - until
they were bribed to do so.

Not a joke but :-) anyway.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 23:01:47 -0500, Ron C wrote:

On 1/5/2017 9:36 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jan 2017 10:40:05 -0500, Davoud wrote:

RichA:
:
: Global warmers can't have it both ways. Either the Earth is still coming
: off the last ice-age which is why it's warming...

The idiot gets it wrong yet again, preserving his perfect record. We
have ways of measuring the rate of warming and the rate since we began
pouring large quantities of particulates and CO2 into the atmosphere at
the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is unprecedented in geologic
time. The curves, warming vs. emission rates, match to an amazing
degree, pointing to one conclusion: human-caused global climate change.

1. Correspondence is not causation.

2. Apart for the last 60 years or so, atmospheric CO2 follows
temperatu CO2 fluctuations are not the cause of temperature
fluctuations.

Yet all but a blink in the geological time line. [Regardless of causation.]

Maybe so but CO2 following temperature seems to have gone on as long
as the ice records.

==
Later...
Ron C
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 22:42:07 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 15:01:31 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:
: On Thu, 05 Jan 2017 09:39:47 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:
: ...
: However, there is the uncomfortable example of Venus. It's not at all
: far-fetched to conclude, as most reputable scientists do, that the reason
: Venus is uninhabitable today is global warming due to the greenhouse effect.
: It's a lesson we may choose to ignore at our peril.
:
: But the atmosphere of Venus is most unlike that of the earth (see
: www.space.com/18526-venus-temperature.html ) Recent discoveries show
: that the temperature of parts of Venus's atmosphere are way below that
: of the earth's atmosphere. See
: http://www.iflscience.com/space/deat...et-not-so-hot/
: or http://tinyurl.com/hrm2ugl

The fact that the temperature of the upper atmosphere of Venus is lower than
expected would be cold comfort to anyone trying to survive on the planet's
surface.The surface is where the greenhouse effect is felt, and the
temperature of its upper atmosphere is irrelevant to Venus's ability to
support life.

No argument there, but it's of no direct relevance to this planet.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2017-01-06 20:05, J. Clarke wrote:
In article wrednUseBPwWv-3FnZ2dnUU7-
,
says...

On 2017-01-06 17:20, Eric Stevens wrote:

There is no dispute about that. There is dispute about the cause.
There is considerable pressure to blame it all on mankind and one of
the techniques that is used is to attempt to minimise the historical
temperature variation. Denying the existence of the Medieval, Roman
and Minoan warm periods is but one of the techniques.

Nobody denies their existence - they question that they are relevant to
what has happened over the past 200 years.

If you look at the population change and carbon emissions over the
history of mankind on the planet, to not ascribe a significant amount of
atmospheric warming to human emissions over the past 2 centuries is
nothing short of willful ignorance.

Not only has the industrial age allowed economies to flourish, but also
enabled the population to explode. The same 200 years of emissions
output correspond to human population exploding from less than 1B to
over 7B. All while using carbon emitting fuels like there was no
tomorrow. (oops).

The naysayers desperately search for those warm periods in the past
while ignoring rate-of-change over short periods as we've experienced
over the last century as CO2 and other gases buildup. Now with
permafrost failure in the north, massive amounts of methane are leaking
and it is a far worse GH gas than CO2 - the feedback effect will simply
accelerate things. Of course those deniers will point to that as a
"natural cause" while ignoring the system that exposed all that
permafrost locked gas in the first place. Such is human folly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUwm...ature=youtu.be
Puts the human population aspect clearly as a function of time.

And a few years down the road the glaciation
trigger will be pulled and everybody will be
wishing for the global warming back.

The glaciation cycle may have been broken for the "near term" by AGW.
So whether the current 50ka prediction holds or is much shorter or
longer is in question.

--
"If war is God's way of teaching Americans geography, then
recession is His way of teaching everyone a little economics."
..Raj Patel, The Value of Nothing.

On 2017-01-06 21:02, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 18:04:43 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2017-01-06 17:20, Eric Stevens wrote:

There is no dispute about that. There is dispute about the cause.
There is considerable pressure to blame it all on mankind and one of
the techniques that is used is to attempt to minimise the historical
temperature variation. Denying the existence of the Medieval, Roman
and Minoan warm periods is but one of the techniques.

Nobody denies their existence - they question that they are relevant to
what has happened over the past 200 years.

They certainly try to ignore their existence. You should also read Dr
David Demings statement to a US Senate Committee:
http://www.epw.senate.gov/hearing_st....cfm?id=266543

"I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area
of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval
Warm Period."

Yes, I'm sure you can find all sorts of samples of one. These denier
nuggets are fodder for fools.


If you look at the population change and carbon emissions over the
history of mankind on the planet, to not ascribe a significant amount of
atmospheric warming to human emissions over the past 2 centuries is
nothing short of willful ignorance.

Atmospheric warming started well before mankind's contribution to
atmospheric CO2 became noticeable. I agree you can draw a parallel
between the current rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature but
correlation is not causation. In fact, when you examine the historical
record everything from the Vostok cores to the current detailed daily
records shows that the atmospheric CO2 concentration lags behind
temperature which surely demonstrates temperature changes cause CO2
changes and not vice versa (unless the source of the temperature
chages is telepathic).

While the factual nugget may be true for past, non-human driven, cycles,
the current change in temperature is driven by the massive amounts of
CO2 (etc.) that we pour into the atmosphere.

It is "convenient" to compare the past to the present. Until the
inconvenience that it is no longer the same laboratory - we have changed
the atmosphere considerably and so such comparisons are not valid.



Not only has the industrial age allowed economies to flourish, but also
enabled the population to explode. The same 200 years of emissions
output correspond to human population exploding from less than 1B to
over 7B. All while using carbon emitting fuels like there was no
tomorrow. (oops).

I agree with you (I think). The rate of population increase is a major
factor in the rate at which we are currently adding CO2 to the
atmosphere. Even though I am not convinced that CO2 is the cause of
the present temperature rise, I do not believe that we can go on
pouring CO2 into the atmosphere indefinitely. Both China and India are
planning to add a large number of coal fired plants and China may even
be planning to supply Europe with power by overland power lines.

The naysayers desperately search for those warm periods in the past
while ignoring rate-of-change over short periods as we've experienced
over the last century as CO2 and other gases buildup. Now with
permafrost failure in the north, massive amounts of methane are leaking
and it is a far worse GH gas than CO2 - the feedback effect will simply
accelerate things. Of course those deniers will point to that as a
"natural cause" while ignoring the system that exposed all that
permafrost locked gas in the first place. Such is human folly.

There is far more methane locked in, in submarine hydrates.

Which is irrelevant hand waving as long as they remain locked in. The
problem is the massive amount of methane that is being unlocked in the
north presently - not that that is still locked up under the seabed.
And that has been triggered by the rapid warming over the last half
century or so.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUwm...ature=youtu.be
Puts the human population aspect clearly as a function of time.

You may be interested in reading
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/...al-bottleneck/
or http://tinyurl.com/j5sxp5l
CO2 is not all bad and quite recently, for a long time, the earth was
on the verge of having too little of it in its atmosphere.

Which has no bearing on AGW.

The deniers do a fine job of stirring the stew for the ignorant. The
AGW scientists do a far better job of showing all of the things that are
contributing to AGW and the fact that it _is_ anthropogenic.

Note that the deniers are urged on and funded by those with a monetary
interest in fossil fuel sales.
latest:
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/bu...inorities.html

There is no monetary upside in promoting the AGW theory. Yet - there it
is in all its inconvenient form.

--
"If war is God's way of teaching Americans geography, then
recession is His way of teaching everyone a little economics."
..Raj Patel, The Value of Nothing.

On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 09:30:44 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2017-01-06 21:02, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 18:04:43 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2017-01-06 17:20, Eric Stevens wrote:

There is no dispute about that. There is dispute about the cause.
There is considerable pressure to blame it all on mankind and one of
the techniques that is used is to attempt to minimise the historical
temperature variation. Denying the existence of the Medieval, Roman
and Minoan warm periods is but one of the techniques.

Nobody denies their existence - they question that they are relevant to
what has happened over the past 200 years.

They certainly try to ignore their existence. You should also read Dr
David Demings statement to a US Senate Committee:
http://www.epw.senate.gov/hearing_st....cfm?id=266543

"I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area
of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval
Warm Period."

Yes, I'm sure you can find all sorts of samples of one. These denier
nuggets are fodder for fools.

Not when they come from major researchers determined to paint a
picture at variance with the facts. See Climategate.


If you look at the population change and carbon emissions over the
history of mankind on the planet, to not ascribe a significant amount of
atmospheric warming to human emissions over the past 2 centuries is
nothing short of willful ignorance.

Atmospheric warming started well before mankind's contribution to
atmospheric CO2 became noticeable. I agree you can draw a parallel
between the current rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature but
correlation is not causation. In fact, when you examine the historical
record everything from the Vostok cores to the current detailed daily
records shows that the atmospheric CO2 concentration lags behind
temperature which surely demonstrates temperature changes cause CO2
changes and not vice versa (unless the source of the temperature
chages is telepathic).

While the factual nugget may be true for past, non-human driven, cycles,
the current change in temperature is driven by the massive amounts of
CO2 (etc.) that we pour into the atmosphere.

It is "convenient" to compare the past to the present. Until the
inconvenience that it is no longer the same laboratory - we have changed
the atmosphere considerably and so such comparisons are not valid.

'considerably' is an overstatement. There has been an increase of CO2
in the atmosphere by approximately .0015% of the atmosphere.



Not only has the industrial age allowed economies to flourish, but also
enabled the population to explode. The same 200 years of emissions
output correspond to human population exploding from less than 1B to
over 7B. All while using carbon emitting fuels like there was no
tomorrow. (oops).

I agree with you (I think). The rate of population increase is a major
factor in the rate at which we are currently adding CO2 to the
atmosphere. Even though I am not convinced that CO2 is the cause of
the present temperature rise, I do not believe that we can go on
pouring CO2 into the atmosphere indefinitely. Both China and India are
planning to add a large number of coal fired plants and China may even
be planning to supply Europe with power by overland power lines.

The naysayers desperately search for those warm periods in the past
while ignoring rate-of-change over short periods as we've experienced
over the last century as CO2 and other gases buildup. Now with
permafrost failure in the north, massive amounts of methane are leaking
and it is a far worse GH gas than CO2 - the feedback effect will simply
accelerate things. Of course those deniers will point to that as a
"natural cause" while ignoring the system that exposed all that
permafrost locked gas in the first place. Such is human folly.

There is far more methane locked in, in submarine hydrates.

Which is irrelevant hand waving as long as they remain locked in. The
problem is the massive amount of methane that is being unlocked in the
north presently - not that that is still locked up under the seabed.
And that has been triggered by the rapid warming over the last half
century or so.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUwm...ature=youtu.be
Puts the human population aspect clearly as a function of time.

You may be interested in reading
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/...al-bottleneck/
or http://tinyurl.com/j5sxp5l
CO2 is not all bad and quite recently, for a long time, the earth was
on the verge of having too little of it in its atmosphere.

Which has no bearing on AGW.

AGW is a hypothesis. It is not yet a provable fact. Both the physics
and the mathematics are against it. None of its predictions have come
true. I'm open to proof otherwise. You are welcome to try. See
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/...rature-return/
or http://tinyurl.com/zoupt27

The deniers do a fine job of stirring the stew for the ignorant. The
AGW scientists do a far better job of showing all of the things that are
contributing to AGW and the fact that it _is_ anthropogenic.

Note that the deniers are urged on and funded by those with a monetary
interest in fossil fuel sales.
latest:
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/bu...inorities.html

There is no monetary upside in promoting the AGW theory. Yet - there it
is in all its inconvenient form.

There is an enormous amount of money to be made from promoting AGW
whether from renewable energy subsidies or grants to study "the
scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to
understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate
change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and
mitigation."

See http://tinyurl.com/h9r7fza or
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doom...founding-flaw/

I don't want to continue this discussion any further in this news
group. It's not the place for it.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 07 Jan 2017 20:50:20 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:
: On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 22:42:07 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:
:
: On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 15:01:31 +1300, Eric Stevens
: wrote:
: : On Thu, 05 Jan 2017 09:39:47 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:
: : ...
: : However, there is the uncomfortable example of Venus. It's not at all
: : far-fetched to conclude, as most reputable scientists do, that the reason
: : Venus is uninhabitable today is global warming due to the greenhouse effect.
: : It's a lesson we may choose to ignore at our peril.
: :
: : But the atmosphere of Venus is most unlike that of the earth (see
: : www.space.com/18526-venus-temperature.html ) Recent discoveries show
: : that the temperature of parts of Venus's atmosphere are way below that
: : of the earth's atmosphere. See
: : http://www.iflscience.com/space/deat...et-not-so-hot/
: : or http://tinyurl.com/hrm2ugl
:
: The fact that the temperature of the upper atmosphere of Venus is lower than
: expected would be cold comfort to anyone trying to survive on the planet's
: surface.The surface is where the greenhouse effect is felt, and the
: temperature of its upper atmosphere is irrelevant to Venus's ability to
: support life.
:
: No argument there, but it's of no direct relevance to this planet.

It was not I who introduced the temperature of Venus's upper atmosphere into
this discussion. I agree that it's irrelevant. Indeed, I thought I just said
so.

My point, which you haven't challenged in any meaningful way, was that since
most scientists ascribe the high surface temperature of Venus to a runaway
greenhouse effect, it behooves us to be careful not to inadvertently bring
about such an occurrence here on Earth. Venus,is, after all, about the same
size as we are and not much closer to the sun. Could we bring about such an
effect? Probably not, but I don't know that. And with all respect, neither do
you.

Bob

On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 16:12:37 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:
: On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 09:30:44 -0500, Alan Browne
: wrote:
:
: On 2017-01-06 21:02, Eric Stevens wrote:
: On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 18:04:43 -0500, Alan Browne
: wrote:
:
: On 2017-01-06 17:20, Eric Stevens wrote:
:
: There is no dispute about that. There is dispute about the cause.
: There is considerable pressure to blame it all on mankind and one of
: the techniques that is used is to attempt to minimise the historical
: temperature variation. Denying the existence of the Medieval, Roman
: and Minoan warm periods is but one of the techniques.
:
: Nobody denies their existence - they question that they are relevant to
: what has happened over the past 200 years.
:
: They certainly try to ignore their existence. You should also read Dr
: David Demings statement to a US Senate Committee:
: http://www.epw.senate.gov/hearing_st....cfm?id=266543
:
: "I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area
: of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval
: Warm Period."
:
: Yes, I'm sure you can find all sorts of samples of one. These denier
: nuggets are fodder for fools.
:
: Not when they come from major researchers determined to paint a
: picture at variance with the facts. See Climategate.
:
:
: If you look at the population change and carbon emissions over the
: history of mankind on the planet, to not ascribe a significant amount of
: atmospheric warming to human emissions over the past 2 centuries is
: nothing short of willful ignorance.
:
: Atmospheric warming started well before mankind's contribution to
: atmospheric CO2 became noticeable. I agree you can draw a parallel
: between the current rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature but
: correlation is not causation. In fact, when you examine the historical
: record everything from the Vostok cores to the current detailed daily
: records shows that the atmospheric CO2 concentration lags behind
: temperature which surely demonstrates temperature changes cause CO2
: changes and not vice versa (unless the source of the temperature
: chages is telepathic).
:
: While the factual nugget may be true for past, non-human driven, cycles,
: the current change in temperature is driven by the massive amounts of
: CO2 (etc.) that we pour into the atmosphere.
:
: It is "convenient" to compare the past to the present. Until the
: inconvenience that it is no longer the same laboratory - we have changed
: the atmosphere considerably and so such comparisons are not valid.
:
: 'considerably' is an overstatement. There has been an increase of CO2
: in the atmosphere by approximately .0015% of the atmosphere.
:
:
:
: Not only has the industrial age allowed economies to flourish, but also
: enabled the population to explode. The same 200 years of emissions
: output correspond to human population exploding from less than 1B to
: over 7B. All while using carbon emitting fuels like there was no
: tomorrow. (oops).
:
: I agree with you (I think). The rate of population increase is a major
: factor in the rate at which we are currently adding CO2 to the
: atmosphere. Even though I am not convinced that CO2 is the cause of
: the present temperature rise, I do not believe that we can go on
: pouring CO2 into the atmosphere indefinitely. Both China and India are
: planning to add a large number of coal fired plants and China may even
: be planning to supply Europe with power by overland power lines.
:
: The naysayers desperately search for those warm periods in the past
: while ignoring rate-of-change over short periods as we've experienced
: over the last century as CO2 and other gases buildup. Now with
: permafrost failure in the north, massive amounts of methane are leaking
: and it is a far worse GH gas than CO2 - the feedback effect will simply
: accelerate things. Of course those deniers will point to that as a
: "natural cause" while ignoring the system that exposed all that
: permafrost locked gas in the first place. Such is human folly.
:
: There is far more methane locked in, in submarine hydrates.
:
: Which is irrelevant hand waving as long as they remain locked in. The
: problem is the massive amount of methane that is being unlocked in the
: north presently - not that that is still locked up under the seabed.
: And that has been triggered by the rapid warming over the last half
: century or so.
:
:
: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUwm...ature=youtu.be
: Puts the human population aspect clearly as a function of time.
:
: You may be interested in reading
: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/...al-bottleneck/
: or http://tinyurl.com/j5sxp5l
: CO2 is not all bad and quite recently, for a long time, the earth was
: on the verge of having too little of it in its atmosphere.
:
: Which has no bearing on AGW.
:
: AGW is a hypothesis. It is not yet a provable fact. Both the physics
: and the mathematics are against it. None of its predictions have come
: true. I'm open to proof otherwise. You are welcome to try. See
: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/...rature-return/
: or http://tinyurl.com/zoupt27
:
: The deniers do a fine job of stirring the stew for the ignorant. The
: AGW scientists do a far better job of showing all of the things that are
: contributing to AGW and the fact that it _is_ anthropogenic.
:
: Note that the deniers are urged on and funded by those with a monetary
: interest in fossil fuel sales.
: latest:
: http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/bu...inorities.html
:
: There is no monetary upside in promoting the AGW theory. Yet - there it
: is in all its inconvenient form.
:
: There is an enormous amount of money to be made from promoting AGW
: whether from renewable energy subsidies or grants to study "the
: scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to
: understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate
: change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and
: mitigation."
:
: See http://tinyurl.com/h9r7fza or
: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doom...founding-flaw/
:
: I don't want to continue this discussion any further in this news
: group.

Then you should, by all means, feel free not to.

: It's not the place for it.

Ah, well, that's a matter of opinion. You get to vote, but you don't get to
decide.

Bob

On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 01:10:58 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2017 20:50:20 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:
: On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 22:42:07 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:
:
: On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 15:01:31 +1300, Eric Stevens
: wrote:
: : On Thu, 05 Jan 2017 09:39:47 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:
: : ...
: : However, there is the uncomfortable example of Venus. It's not at all
: : far-fetched to conclude, as most reputable scientists do, that the reason
: : Venus is uninhabitable today is global warming due to the greenhouse effect.
: : It's a lesson we may choose to ignore at our peril.
: :
: : But the atmosphere of Venus is most unlike that of the earth (see
: : www.space.com/18526-venus-temperature.html ) Recent discoveries show
: : that the temperature of parts of Venus's atmosphere are way below that
: : of the earth's atmosphere. See
: : http://www.iflscience.com/space/deat...et-not-so-hot/
: : or http://tinyurl.com/hrm2ugl
:
: The fact that the temperature of the upper atmosphere of Venus is lower than
: expected would be cold comfort to anyone trying to survive on the planet's
: surface.The surface is where the greenhouse effect is felt, and the
: temperature of its upper atmosphere is irrelevant to Venus's ability to
: support life.
:
: No argument there, but it's of no direct relevance to this planet.

It was not I who introduced the temperature of Venus's upper atmosphere into
this discussion. I agree that it's irrelevant. Indeed, I thought I just said
so.

My point, which you haven't challenged in any meaningful way, was that since
most scientists ascribe the high surface temperature of Venus to a runaway
greenhouse effect, it behooves us to be careful not to inadvertently bring
about such an occurrence here on Earth. Venus,is, after all, about the same
size as we are and not much closer to the sun. Could we bring about such an
effect? Probably not, but I don't know that. And with all respect, neither do
you.

We would all be dead from lack of oxygen long before we got to that
point.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
RichA wrote:


Cold weather is responsible for killing millions each year (40,000 in the UK
alone in 2014) and according to the fossil record, warm periods had FAR more
life and diversity of life than any cold periods.

that's more than killed in automobile collisions.

it's time to ban cold weather.