Can you offer evidence that warmer is not *always* better?

Can you offer evidence that warmer is not *always* better? Topic: Can you offer evidence that warmer is not *always* better?
June 27, 2019 / By Alease
Question: Certain deniers here (I usually extend the benefit of the doubt and call y'all skeptics, but this one is pretty much the province of the hard-and-fast, "La, la, la, I'm not listening" denier crowd) say that "warmer is better", as a blanket, there-are-no-exceptions statement. I do not deny that warmer conditions are, at least in temperate climates, usually a bit better for humans and their crops than colder conditions. Freezing tends to kill things, so less freezing is generally good. But there's a much wider range of temperatures out there than just "freezing" vs "not freezing". So, I'd like to see links to news reports, research papers, and so on that show cases where unusually warm weather caused death, crop losses, lower crop yields, or other harm. Feel free to throw in any actual scholarly historical or prehistorical analyses of how humans and other life forms have fared in warmer vs colder times, particularly in areas *besides* Europe. And I'd like everyone who's ever said "warmer is better" as if it covers all cases everywhere to look at those links, and tell me if you can still tell me, with a straight face, that "warmer is better", full stop... Dook: I agree that the secondary effects are probably a larger problem than the actual direct heating, but since the "average" temperature does not entirely reflect the actual change (some areas warm more than others, and I believe there will at least occasionally be a pattern of higher highs and the same or lower lows...), and since we don't know for sure what all the secondary effects will actually *be*, I'd just address the people who seem to think that "warmer" is always a wonderful thing for everyone everywhere. Jeff, D/Dx, nice links. Jim, Europe, Canada, and the US are *not* the entire world. What you're basically saying is "warming's good for everyone I really care about, so something over half the world's population can just go hang"... try following a few of those links... Oh, and, Jim, as far as your religion of warmer=better crack, did you not read the part where I said, and I quote, "warmer conditions are, at least in temperate climates, usually a bit better for humans and their crops than colder conditions."?... er, make that religion of warmer=bad. Phoenix: do you have any idea what fraction of the world's population *doesn't* live in a temperate climate? Take India, for example. India has a *lot* of people. It's also subtropical. Mexico has a lot of people. It's subtropical to tropical. Your "warmer is better" idea only works if you ignore something like half of the world's population...
Best Answer

Best Answers: Can you offer evidence that warmer is not *always* better?

Tristin Tristin | 1 day ago
It depends on what part of the planet we are talking about of course. Some areas of the world would benefit from warming while other areas of the world would not. The problem with these deniers that say this is that they have a very narrow view. Here are some studies done that show what the effects on crops will be in some parts of the world. And here are some articles on flooding among other things Images, from peer reviewed literature, of various climate warming impacts
👍 150 | 👎 1
Did you like the answer? Can you offer evidence that warmer is not *always* better? Share with your friends
Tristin Originally Answered: does evidence of creater=evidence of a god?
The only way primitive religion exists today is through the child abuse of forcing it into very, very young children but thanks to better education and growing intellects so many teens are able to discover the truth, throw off the indoctrination and step into the real world! Academia states that in the absence of any sort of evidence of the existence of something it must be deemed not to exist until verifiable evidence is found - thus god is held not to exist pending some sort of verifiable evidence. The bible is what is called "Faction" A fictional story set in a factual time and place. Thus the time, place and real historical characters are all correct but the fictional characters and stories are not! There is not one single mention of Jesus in the entire Roman record - that is right - not one! At the same time as he was supposed to have been around there were a number of Jews claiming to be the messiah - all of whom are well recorded! There is not a single contemporary record from any source and even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death! He was supposed to have been a huge problem to the Romans and produced wonderful miracles but still not one contemporary record? Even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death! Pilate is recorded in the Roman record as a somewhat lack luster man but no mention of a Jesus, a trial or crucifixion that would surely have been used to make him look brighter! At best he was an amalgam of those others but almost certainly never existed! The Roman Emperor Constantine produced the bible and he was a pagan not god! He took the Jewish religion, organized it into Christianity and then into the Holly Roman Catholic Church!! Not in Israel or any of the countries of supposed origin but entirely ITALIAN! Not one word of it is contemporary with the period and was not written until several hundred years after the period the story is set in!! How did the apostles write their books more than a hundred years after they would have been dead? The first person to provide a shred of verifiable evidence for God will become world famous and mega rich! Ain't happened yet and it never will! So how does this primitive belief in a god survive? The answer is simple and very down to Earth Acceptance of a supernatural claim tends to promote cooperative social relationships. This communication demonstrates a willingness to accept, without skepticism, the influence of the speaker in a way similar to a child's acceptance of the influence of a parent. By encouraging this kind of behavior where the most intense social relationships occur it facilitates the lack of skepticism and deters more open minded thinking. They are christian, Muslim or the other religions depending where they were born simply because they were indoctrinated by their parents as very young children. They will go on to indoctrinate their own children and those will go on to indoctrinate their grandchildren! Atheists have the intellect to see through the conditioning and escape into the real world! Agnostics have the intellect to see through the conditioning but lack the courage to throw of the conditioning entirely. Sadly Christians, muslims and others are still held firmly prisoner by the self perpetuating brainwashing!

Reilly Reilly
I have proof that warmer is better. I believe you always require a 30 year period to make meaningful statements about trends. Global human development index 1975-2004 trend: Hadcrut3 global mean temperature 1975-2004 trend:
👍 60 | 👎 -6

Meed Meed
There is the dust bowl.
👍 60 | 👎 -13

Johnnie Johnnie
The problem with Warmists is they easily believe the patently absurd & want peer review papers to verify the flamingly obvious. Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non smart reasons. Any clever mind can come up with many examples of when warmer wasn't better. If we were to take this to the purest logic of the meaning why the surface of the sun would be defined as paradise. If someone says they will love you forever, are you going to call them they are a moronic liar? It's mind numbing. Is warmer always better, or course not. Is a few degrees warmer generally more favorable to life on Earth, than a few degrees cooler? - absolutely. "I do not deny that warmer conditions are, at least in temperate climates, usually a bit better for humans" Well good, because that's all the statement means. When you have a Little Ice Age - crops fail & humans die in mass. Warmer usually means milder winters & longer growing seasons. People never ask how did that species survive the interglacial period, it's always how did it survive the ice age. Or in the case of most of North America's large mammals - we note they DIDN'T survive the last Ice Age. As a rule 'Warmer is Better'. This is significant in the Global Warming debate when you consider the total temperature rise attributed to humankind's fossil fuel use is less than a degree. So what do we get by burning the rest of Earths fossil fuels? Another degree maybe? This is absolutely a big giant 'so what'. Might that immerse some low lying Pacific Islands or beach front property. Sure, but again so what? Geologically speaking the Ocean Level is low. These places will be immersed in time regardless. The bottom line is a little warmth inconveniences a few, while a little cold kills millions. The IPCC thinks the Little Ice Age was less than .4 degrees colder than the medieval warm period. Of course the IPCC is the same politically driven organization that vastly overstates the sensitivity of Global Temperatures to CO2. Poetically speaking Warmer IS Better. The proper answer to concerns that the Globe might be a degree or two warmer in 100 years is 'so what'. If you think that matters, start burying biochar.
👍 60 | 👎 -20

Habakkuk Habakkuk
Can I think of an exception where having the flu isn't better? I suppose if I had the flu and missed a train that crashed, then having the flu would have saved me. Still not having the flu is generally my preference. Yours is a pretty empty argument. Almost any 3rd grader could explain why warming is generally good unless they have already been propagandized to by the loony left. Warming is generally better, certainly for anyone living in most of the US, Europe and Canada. Summers are normally hot but having warm comfortable winters is beneficial to animals and plants. I grew up mostly in South Dakota in the Black Hills. I am sure when I was seven years old, I realized that animals struggle to survive the winters. Only the very strong survive. Cold was deadly. Cold was something to endure. The warm periods of time have historically been associated with wealth and prosperity and cold times have been associated with plagues, famine, and dark times. This isn't coincidence. Humans have depended on the food they produced and climate played a large historical role. When you have a religion that preaches warming is bad, it is up to faithful to prove to the the rest of us that there is something to worry about. So far your side has failed miserably.
👍 60 | 👎 -27

Habakkuk Originally Answered: Whats wrong with this offer?
Sounds fishy for several reasons. 1) 3% is an unheard of rate for loans like this. 2) I sincerely doubt the method related would work. Corporporations have long term relationships with their financial institution. They don't borrow $30 mil by mail. Unlessyou friend is very experienced in this field, he should stay away

If you have your own answer to the question Can you offer evidence that warmer is not *always* better?, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.