It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Warming Earth leads to dangerous droughts and disease

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 12:46 PM
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Yep. Looks like they were right about a lot.
...Deaths from starvation is under-estimated tho - Ehrlich said "at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years" - but it's more like 7.6 MILLION per year dead of starvation.

World Hunger Statistics

Total number of children that die every year from hunger 1.5 million
Percent of world population considered to be starving 33%
Time between deaths of people who die from hunger 3.6 seconds
Total number of people in the world who suffer from hunger and malnutrition 800 million
Total number of people who do not have enough to eat 936 million people
Total percentage who do not have enough to eat who live in developing countries 98%
Total percentage of world’s hungry that live in 7 countries 65%
Number of people who died of hunger today 20,864
Total number of people who will die of hunger this year 7,615,360

Total percentage of U.S. households that are at risk of hunger 11%

edit on 25/4/14 by soficrow because: sp

posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 09:22 PM
a reply to: soficrow

you might want to try getting hunger statistics from people who are NOT trying to get funding to combat hunger

Take a good look at how these statistics are derived:

notice how they don't contact hospitals are anything silly like that to figure out the actual number of people who died from malnutrition?

Tired of Control Freaks

posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 09:33 PM
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

You might also want to consider that in these statistical estimates of "world hunger", the obese, those who eat too many calories are also defined as "malnourished'

Tired of control freaks

posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 11:01 PM
a reply to: [post=17840676]l

I appreciate the input and let me be clear I am not denying historical or scientific data. However, to deny what we see happening around us is suicidal. Storms are becoming more and more powerful and more frequent; nowadays it seems like every other storm is a major event, sinkholes keep opening in odd places swallowing cars and houses, major eruptions seem to be getting more frequent, some ice caps are melting, major flooding is becoming more and more frequent....should I say more? Because I can say more. I am speculating but it's based off what I'm seeing happen around me on a worldwide scale. You can't ignore it.

posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 09:24 AM
a reply to: lostbook

What you are talking about is anecdotal evidence and it is meaningless

There have always been storms, sinkholes and eruptions. Its mother nature at her best

As a matter of fact, the earth has been both warmer and colder than it is now

Tired of control freaks

posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 10:11 AM
a reply to: lostbook

So where do I sign up to apologize to the Anasazi for the nasty decades long drought in the desert Southwest that wiped them out? I'm sure my car back-polluted through time to cause it.

That area of the country has historically had major and lengthy devastating droughts. What you see happening now is not in any way unprecedented. So, why assume that it is in any way caused this time by man's activities over and above natural variability?

No one with half a brain disputes that climate changes, after all, you can go outside and observe it happening every year, four times, we call it seasons. But what is very up open for debate is how all the mechanisms come together to drive the changes we observe, even what those mechanisms are their relative importance.

We don't even know for sure what part the sun plays in full and yet, you claim we can isolate and know with any real certainty what role mankind if playing? I don't think so.

posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 10:29 AM

originally posted by: Shake77
the climate has been changing for billions of years
your so called naysayers have the point of view that man has not changed it only added slightly to what happens naturally
the facts of history prove this over and over. i believe history not millionair scientists that are payed out my taxes to skew data to get more of my taxes. but yes we should not pollute at all i feel more sorry for the fish at the moment.

the point on this story for me is we should have controlled the population of the poor in the already dry barren lands instead of spending our taxes over the last 50 years feeding them and making the eventual suffering worse to a much larger population dependant on our bloody taxes.

how much in taxes were spent by the government to repair damage by hurricane sandy?....for the last 10 years in America, hurricanes alone cost 320 isn't even counting quakes, wildfires, tornados and severe storms, freezes, and floods....and you're worried about spending tax money to combat global warming???
edit on 26-4-2014 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-4-2014 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-4-2014 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 01:12 PM
a reply to: jimmyx

Do the math. 320 billion divided by 300 million population =roughly $1022.00. Then divide by 10 for the number of years. That is about $100 per person per year.

Do big number scare you?

Tired of Control Freaks

posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 02:22 PM

originally posted by: pikestaff
From what I have read from the climate sites I visit, in Roman times there were hardly any glaciers in Norway, so it must have been 'warm'.
Here's a mystery, no world temperature change for the last 16 years, yet Antarctic sea ice is at its highest 'since records began' ?

Well it seems the climate sites you visit may not be telling the truth. Can you please explain how you figure the ice is at its highest?

If you think climate change is something that is going to happen, you might want to take 60 seconds to observe what is happening now.

In this short animation, the oldest sea ice (10 years or older) is white while the new ice (1 year) is light blue. Watch as the oldest sea ice is rapidly destroyed as a result of climate change.

Under normal conditions, the footprint of the sea ice grows during Fall and Winter and shrinks in Summer. Ice that survives the Summer melt gains thickness and is more likely to continue to grow year after year. The oldest ice at the center is also the thickest and forms the core of the floating sea ice – a critical natural climate regulator.

As the sea ice melts, the Albedo effect of the sea ice diminishes. In other words, less of the sun’s radiation is reflected back into space. With the loss of the Albedo effect, the darker, warmer liquid water absorbs heat from the sun, creating a cycle of melting and increasing the acceleration of global temperature rise.

The melting of the sea ice is also related to the melting of the land-based permafrost in the arctic circle – another major accelerator of climate

Pretty sure the photographic evidence shows that ice is "not" at a high.
edit on 26-4-2014 by Grimpachi because: deedede

posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 02:43 PM
Thx 4 ta link.

posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 04:48 PM
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Excellent link. Thank you. From your source: Hunger Map

Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.

posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 06:34 PM
a reply to: soficrow

Well that a very very tall order isn't it? Not enough to have sufficient calories to sustain your body, the world must also provide you with the food of your preference or you are "malnourished" and if you eat too much of it, you are also "malnourished".

Guess a good charity's work (and funding needs) are never done!

Tired of Control Freaks

posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 06:57 PM

why assume that it is in any way caused this time by man's activities over and above natural variability?

Why assume that 7 billon people cutting down trees, dumping toxins and burning stuff has no effect on the environment? In just one city people (Houston) warm the environment 10-20 degrees over surrounding areas yet you seriously claim that people have no effect on the planet.

Oh, and when it was hotter in the past the continents were closer to the equator and there wasn't polar currents going all over the world. You can't compare that to today.

posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 08:16 PM
a reply to: CB328

You can't compare to yesterday???? Then how do you know its hotter????

7.5 billion and spread over more area than in the past (or can't you compare to the past?

Tired of Control Freaks

posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 08:57 PM

originally posted by: lostbook
To all of you climate change naysayers out there there's an article on about the REALITY of climate change and what will happen as temperatures rise.

Check it out, ATS.

No check this out: the science says it ain't so

posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 09:08 AM
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

"Food preferences" likely refers to religious proscriptions, as in Jewish and Muslim bans on eating pork. In any event, you're not seriously denying that millions of people in our world do die every year from hunger-related causes?

[Besides dying from starvation, malnourished children and adults are unable to fight common infections, and die when they shouldn't.]

edit on 27/4/14 by soficrow because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 11:08 AM
a reply to: soficrow


Trust me. I have a heart, a big one. A heart that is tired of being manipulated by global organizations whose sole purpose of existance is to put out doom propaganda for the purposes of raiding your cookie jar!

Of course there are hungry people in the world. Of course there are people who are starving to death. But the main reason for hunger and starvation is that food is used as a weopon of WAR and because food supplies are diverted from their intended recipients by warlords and politicians. The remainder of hunger is caused by natural and unnatural disasters, where transportation is impeded in some fashion.

Here are the facts:

The idea of a population bomb and the prospect of mass starvation as a result of the population bomb was first proposed by a pastor by the name of Malthusian.

Now Malthusian lived in the 1800s when the population was estimated to be 1 billion people. He predicted that population would increase to 256 billion within 200 years (we are at 7.5 billion)

Now Malthusian was all up in everyone's business and wanted the government to take action to control population growth, up to and including, early death by starvation and untreated disease.

What a nice fellow eh!

Of course what Malthusian couldn't predict was population control caused with the education of woman (educated woman have 1-3 babies, uneducated woman have 5-10 and more) and the advent of modern farming techniques.

Ever since Malthusian came up with his theory there has been re-heated hashes of the same theory.

One of the most recent was the Population Bomb published in 1968

n The Population Bomb's' opening lines the authors state that nothing can prevent famines in which hundreds of millions of people will die during the 1970s (amended to 1970s and 80s in later editions), and that there would be "a substantial increase in the world death rate." Although many lives could be saved through dramatic action, it was already too late to prevent a substantial increase in the global death rate. However, in reality the global death rate has continued to decline substantially since then, from 13/1000 in 1965–74 to 10/1000 from 1985–1990. Meanwhile the population of the world has more than doubled, while calories consumed/person have increased 24%. The UN does not keep official death-by-hunger statistics so it is hard to measure whether the "hundreds of millions of deaths" number is correct. Ehrlich himself suggested in 2009 that between 200-300 million had died of hunger since 1968. However, that is measured over 40 years rather than the ten to twenty foreseen in the book, so it can be seen as significantly fewer than predicted.[17]

My point here is that Malthusian theory and all of its subsequent adherents has been proved wrong numerous times in 200 years

What makes you think they are right now?

Even if I was to accept 200 million people dying per year as previously quoted (which I don't), that really equals only 2.7 % of the world's population. Are you willing to believe that in a world with wars, droughts, famines, natural catastrophes, the use of food as a weopon of war, that we can completely ensure that no person in the world will ever go hungry? Are we so different from every other animal species on the planet?

Further re: the population bomb. The worlds' population is excepted to continue to increase to about 9.5 billion in 2050 and then drop like a stone. Google this to see if I am right.

Agriculture continues to keep pace with world population.

Malthusian theories are just another form of doom porn!

Tired of Control Freaks

The world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day according to the most recent estimate that we could find (FAO 2002, p.9). The principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food.

posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 04:45 PM
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I agree with your views on Malthus and Ehrlich - and emphatically do NOT support eugenics policies or the idea that population needs reduction. That said, there are real wrongs to be righted.

posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 06:31 PM
a reply to: soficrow

Agreed! - what really pisses me off is that the UN is quite complicant in supporting warlords and the resultant starvation of the population

If the US would stop the use of embargos such as the one in Cuba - the population would then be in a position not to starve to death!

Tired of Control Freaks

new topics

<< 1   >>

log in