• MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    16 hours ago

    I think you’re going to get yelled at and I apologize in advance.

    It’s a fair question, there’s a lot of reckless claims made these days.

    That being said, depending on how bad things get, yeah. Some incredibly populous places will be directly and heavily affected (1.21 billion currently in sub Saharan Africa alone.) Add in the conflicts over diminishing resources (think crop failures, droughts etc) as well as knock on effects (eg, increased range/spread of malaria.)

    Heck, climate change has barely gotten started and I’d bet we’re into millions dead already (compared to a non warning world) consider how many thousands have been lost to extreme events like floods, fires and heat waves.

    • reactionality@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      Since we can’t observe the counterfactual, meaning “had climate change not happened”, the amount of deaths directly linked to the current severity of the climate change effects cannot be established for sure.

      We can extrapolate, but we can’t compare against a reality that did not happen.

      • MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Sure, just like literally everything comparing reality to the counter-factual this involves estimates. Not a particularly profound or useful observation.

      • ILoveUnions@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        You don’t understand how science works. It’s been proven with full certainty that climate change is fully caused by humans. Any nay saying to that is just pretending otherwise; there’s far and away enough evidence to prove it