"Climate change is not an ‘existential threat"

Question

This article claims that climate change is not an existential threat and that Biden's claims are "fraudulent." It claims that "colder weather kills several times more people than warmer temperatures." This is an extremely vague claim with no evidence to support it. The National Library of Medicine a trusted government website says, "A letter signed by over 50 leading members of the American Meteorological Society warned about the policies promoted by environmental pressure groups." in response to some scientists who do not think climate change is a pressing issue. 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2618947/climate-change-is-not-an-existential-threat/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Pmax_USA_Magazine_21-June-Intent-Audience-Signals&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwveK4BhD4ARIsAKy6pMJjWeEsTzZj1UbXReescQrrMTlRxtuqyyrPgqWY-faJu_QZTgBlGBsaApjEEALw_wcB

Answer 1

Like you said, this article makes vague claims with no evidence to support it other than an unnamed study. It claims that global warming prevents over 166,000 temperature related deaths each year. However, according to the World Health Organization, "between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from undernutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress alone." Extreme weather events due to climate change such as hurricanes, extreme heat waves, flooding, and disruptions of food systems leads to disease, mental health issues, and death. Climate change has extreme and obvious effects that clearly qualify it as an existential threat to humanity, despite this article's false claims.

climate-change-and-health

Comments

I agree that the article gives vague claims that are unsupported. I like your source of the WHO is very credible to back up that climate change will cause more deaths per year between 2030-2050.

---

Having numbers shown us how many death will happen from 2030 to 2050, I believe that will motivate people to do better for the climate.

Answer 2

The Washington Examiner article “Climate Change is not a “Existential Threat”” claims that the environmental benefits of global warming offset its harm.

This claim is vastly misleading. The first claim that is made is that there have been fewer temperature-related deaths in recent years, due to the fact that more deaths are caused by the cold than by the heat. While it is true that cold-related deaths have been on the decline, heat-related deaths have been on the rise. We can consider global warming a factor in this change, but there are many other contributors to consider. 

The next claim is that global warming has been beneficial for plant life. According to this NASA article, “The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited … Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.” The positive affect on plants is only temporary.

The third claim is that the number of hurricanes per year has not increased. The important fact that is missing here is that the intensity has. “According to the total annual ACE Index, cyclone intensity has risen noticeably over the past 30 years” states this EPA article. A claim is also made that the total acreage burnt by wildfires has decreased. On the contrary, the EPA says: “The extent of area burned by wildfires each year appears to have increased since the 1980s.” Also, the amount of damage the fires have done has increased. 

Finally, there is the matter of air pollution. The article states that global air pollution deaths have decreased. “Our World Data” puts this in perspective. “Globally, we see that in recent decades, the death rates from total air pollution have declined: since 1990, death rates have nearly halved. But, as we see from the breakdown, this decline has been primarily driven by improvements in indoor air pollution.” So, not only have air pollution deaths decreased due to advances in air circulation, but people with preexisting health conditions are still adversely affected by pollution. 

Answer 3

(Post 1`/2) 

In the article Climate change is not an ‘existential threat', David Simon claims that climate change is an “existential threat” is not backed by science and overlooks potential benefits of global warming.  

To begin, the website that this was posted on is the Washington Examiner. This news outlet has been analyzed through Ad Fontes Media’s media bias data through their media ratings methodology. According to their data, the Washinton Examiner tends to have a reliability rate of 34.07 (scores above 40 are generally more trustworthy), while having a bias rate of 11.30 (Ad Fontes Media, 2024). The analysis states that the Washington Examiners articles tend to skew right with political views. The author David Simon has produced several other articles, however he does not seem to have any other publications outside of the Washington Examiner. 

Comments

Post 2/2
The articles claims that global warming is not and should not be considered an existential threat. This is not backed up by the scientific consensus of many climate scientists and organizations, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The consensus among climate scientists is that climate change does infact have significant environmental, economic, and health risks that should be taken seriously.

To back this claim up, Simon used the logic that “-cooler temperatures kill several times more people than warmer temperatures”, and in that case global warming is preventing temperature related deaths. What he fails to point out is that global warming as a broader context is due to climate change. Climate change leads to an increase in severe weather events, which can have devastating effects on global health and safety.

Overall, this article seems to oversimplify climate change and its severity, as well as underrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change.

Answer 4

The article states that climate change is not an existential threat, with arguments centered around cold temperatures being deadlier than heat. While it claims that Biden's policies are "fraudulent", the claim is extremely vague and unsupported with data. Sources like the Lancet report included in the article show that historically, cold weather has caused more deaths than heat, however, this does not show or mention the constantly growing dangers of extreme heat due to climate change around the world. The IPCC and other reliable scientific organizations emphasize that global warming could lead to severe disruptions including food shortages, ecosystem collapse, and extreme weather. Furthermore, reports by the National Academy of Sciences supports the idea that climate change creates significant threats to human survival, especially with the acceleration of the rise of sea level, intensified storms, and making large areas of land uninhabitable. The vague reference to the "letter" from the National Library of Medicine is misleading due to the fact that the letter, which is signed by members of the American Meteorological Society, reflects the ongoing debate of climate change, but the majority of scientists agree on the urgency of addressing global warming. In conclusion, this source is false due to the fact it gives no evidence to back up its claim.