16 ms·

Harvey Didn't Come Out of the Blue. Now Is the Time to Talk about Climate Change

54 points by cardamomo 9y ago

ackfoo 9y ago
Harvey was a hurricane. It could have occurred anywhere on the Gulf Coast. There is no direct relationship between climate change and any particular named storm. To argue otherwise is to destroy one's credibility. The problems that exacerbated the disaster of Harvey are indeed linked to climate change, but not in the simple-minded way that Naomi Klein makes out. The economic factors that lead to high-density construction in flood zones are the same as those that drive the wasteful use of fossil fuel energy. Overpopulation, overbuilding, market-driven urban planning practices, shoddy construction intended to maximize profit and waste while minimizing safety--all of these underlie both climate change and the disaster in Houston. Raving about climate change as if every hurricane is a direct consequence is both intellectually ridiculous and it ignores the root cause: us and our wasteful, idiotic consumerism. If we understand that we, and not corporations or governments, are the root cause, we can fix climate change almost overnight by two simple expedients: stop having babies and stop buying things that we don't absolutely need. By doing so, we could exercise power over the corporations that we unfairly demonize. No company is going to dig oil out of the ground if the demand does not justify it. Klain's worst offence is being a stupid liberal, just like the ones who drove 36 hours or more one-way to join the protest at Standing Rock in gas-powered vehicles. Want to stop an oil pipeline? Stop using oil. It's easy: at least 80% of our energy use is wasted. Just cut the waste. When stupid liberals write articles like this, a backlash is inevitable. Want four more years of Trump? Want the alt-right marching in the streets? Keep writing articles like this. Instead, be a smart liberal. Start by having a look in the mirror.
- toss892625 9y ago
  'market-driven urban planning practices' National Flood Insurance Program subsidizes building in flood-prone areas. Doesn't sound very market-driven to me.
  - danharaj 9y ago
    No true market.
    - honestoHeminway 9y ago
      If its bad, it never is.
      - danharaj 9y ago
        A market is a market, whether it's distorted or regulated or monopolized or captured or unhealthy. The fact that markets can behave poorly because they are embedded in the wider world is absolutely intrinsic to the concept of a market.
        emodendroket 9y ago
        Yeah, I think it is a mistake to try and think about the market and the political environment as two separate spheres rather than deeply linked entities constantly influencing each other. There is no such thing as "free market" without a government creating the conditions for one, whether that means subsidizing flood insurance or creating a navy to force other countries to go along with free trade (a development largely coinciding with the rise of laissez-faire theory).
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- DennisP 9y ago
  Not all cases of lung cancer are caused by smoking. There's no way to prove that a particular case of lung cancer was caused by smoking. Does that mean we shouldn't talk about lung cancer as a reason to avoid smoking?
- mannykannot 9y ago
  Nevertheless, now is the time to talk about climate change, and has been for some time.
- mcot2 9y ago
  I'm more interested in sea level rise and warmer oceans as direct catalysts for more powerful storms with larger impacts occurring more frequently. The fact that we indiscriminately build cities and industries close to the coast obviously doesn't help.
- siculars 9y ago
  Yes, overall, if you care that deeply about climate change you should not procreate - you may also consider an early exit for yourself. Then there is the eco-terrorist who will justify early exists for others by saving the planet. If you think those that supported Trump were bad now, just wait till "stupid liberals" start telling people who can and can not have babies. Good luck. Obviously, the above is ridiculous.
- DarkKomunalec 9y ago
  > stop having babies Most of the west has already drastically reduced the number of babies. All that happened is we were told we need immigration instead.
  - mercurysmessage 9y ago
    I don't know why you insist on spreading this ignorance all over HN, this really isn't the place for your rhetoric.
    - DarkKomunalec 9y ago
      Ignorance? Well, please point out where I made an error - I'd be happy to correct it.
      - mercurysmessage 9y ago
        > All that happened is we were told we need immigration instead. You say this everywhere, we discussed this already. You have an unfounded, ignorant view of immigration. You are so locked into your position that it doesn't matter what you are shown, you will ignore it and instead fall back to your ignorant position. And please, tell me why a tech news aggregator is the place for ignorant anti-immigration rhetoric?
        DarkKomunalec 9y ago
        So the error is... where? If you think I am beyond saving, at least point it out for the sake of any not-yet-lost souls reading.
        mercurysmessage 9y ago
        What is wrong with immigration? What do you have against people looking to move to new countries. When someone moves, they pay taxes, they work, they contribute to society. It's not easy to immigrate, and often smarter, better educated people are the ones who get to immigrate. It's a benefit for the country that gets a lot of immigrants (i.e. The US benefits from this a lot), and a detriment to the country that loses them. Often called brain drain. Employers can choose who to hire, a smart employer won't care if the candidate is born in the same country as you, it has absolutely no bearing on their quality as a human, or the work they complete. If you live in North America, aside from the aboriginals, everyone is descended from, or directly an immigrant. What makes you so much better than someone else looking to move? Again, a tech news aggregator is not a place for ignorant opinions on, frankly, humans. You also haven't answered why you feel this way.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  I completely disagree with this perspective. If I did the most carbon-neutral thing and jumped off a building tomorrow it still would not make a difference. And it has really grown wearisome to read "this is why Trump won!!" in response to literally any other perspective or action.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- sctb 9y ago
  We're trying to have a thoughtful conversation here. Name calling, handwavey dismissals, and provocation just start flamewars. Please aim for a higher standard so we can have a better chance at a substantive discussion. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- jabv 9y ago
  I appreciate your call to take a cause seriously by making changes in one's personal life. That said, every time I read someone advise "stop having babies" to combat climate change, I am reminded of the South Park episode wherein the overzealous hunters claim that deer overpopulation will cause some deer to die, so they need to kill the deer to prevent overpopulation and future deer deaths.
emodendroket 9y ago
Also worth talking about and springing from similar causes: wetland reduction has made the region more vulnerable to floods, as this local article highlighted a year ago. http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Houston-s-development-boom-and-reduction-of-8403838.php http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/a...
chiph 9y ago
Climate change is the most likely reason behind rising sea levels, however, Houston is far enough inland to not have gotten any storm surge. What happened was the storm stalled over top of the city instead of moving on through. This meant that it picked up water on the south-east side of the storm and dropped it on the north-west side, right over the neighborhoods. And did it over a couple of days. What it was .. was a severe rainfall event. And the photo she led with, with the people walking along the highway divider? Houston's road network is designed to be a last-resort flood buffer to collect rainwater temporarily until it can drain to the east into the ship canal. So yeah, that's going to happen. The good news is the $700+ million in FEMA money that was spent over the years since Katrina to prevent flooding at the city's medical centers appears to have worked. They stayed open.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  It was my understanding that climate change made events like hurricanes and extreme rainfall more likely.
  - cpr 9y ago
    Except that the US has had 10 years free of serious storms. Doesn't quite fit the narrative.
    - 0xfeba 9y ago
      Please define "serious", as the US has definitely had multiple storms in the past 10 years.
      - Turing_Machine 9y ago
        See the link I posted above. Before this storm, the last hurricane of Category 3 or greater to strike the United States was Wilma, in 2005. The last Category 5 storm to strike the United States was Andrew, in 1992.
        9y ago
diego_moita 9y ago
There are a lot of things more crucial than climate change. There are towns with no building and zoning regulations, bad infrastructure for water drainage and few resources for tragedy prevention. Low taxes and deregulation are very nice in the short run. But then comes what statisticians call black swans and you understand why you needed them. New Orleans and Houston are Gulf Coast cities, they should expect hurricanes and should build accordingly. Just as much as California builds expecting earthquakes. France and Germany have a much bigger population density and lots of floods but a lot less fatalities. Maybe they know something about how to build cities.
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  France doesn't get anywhere even close to what Harvey dumped on Houston. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40554842 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40554842 - Paris got 54mm of rain - "heaviest July deluge on record", "the equivalent of 27 days of rainfall". Harvey has dumped 25x that (51" and rising) on Houston. If you dumped half that on Paris, I guarantee it would be a national disaster on the same scale.
- chiph 9y ago
  Funny that you mention zoning - Houston has none. There's a guy living next door to an amusement park and during the summer has to listen to the screams of the adjacent roller coaster riders every 2.5 minutes. It's just an accepted part of living there. However, Houston does have building codes, and structures must withstand 130-150 mph winds, depending on location and other factors. So new-construction buildings and those undergoing significant renovations must have things like hurricane-rated glazing, and roof ties to prevent them from being blown off. https://edocs.publicworks.houstontx.gov/documents/divisions/planning/enforcement/1110_design_criteria_coh_building_code.pdf https://edocs.publicworks.houstontx.gov/documents/divisions/...
bmmayer1 9y ago
Two things to note here: - Naomi Klein is a well-known leftist activist and author with a clear agenda. Take what she writes with a grain of salt. - Yes, it's important to think about climate change and how it may impact weather patterns. But no serious climate scientist would ever credit singular weather events to global climate trends, which take decades to evolve. It's lazy to use a hurricane to bolster climate change arguments for the same reason it's lazy to use a blizzard to bolster climate change skeptics.
- DennisP 9y ago
  This is like saying it's lazy to use lung cancer cases to bolster arguments against smoking, since there's no way to prove that a particular case of cancer was caused by smoking.
  - bmmayer1 9y ago
    As long as you are comfortable with cigarette companies pointing to cancer-free smokers and saying "See! Smoking doesn't cause cancer!"
    - DennisP 9y ago
      Which they did for a while, but we didn't respond by abandoning the entire line of argument, which would have been silly.
- rocqua 9y ago
  Obviously, climate change is nowhere near 'the cause' of this storm. However, the pattern of there being more storms and floods is a clear consequence of climate change. Choosing this moment to drive home the need to reverse climate change makes sense. Which I think is the intention here. This is more about arguing 'climate change is bad' as opposed to 'climate change is real. And really, we don't need to be discussing the latter, it has been well established.
  - Turing_Machine 9y ago
dogruck 9y ago
Anyone have proof that man's actions have significantly contributed to this storm's catastrophic power? The title feels like political click bait, to me. How about proactively preparing for these events? If you tell me, "there's no way we could prepare" I'll tell you "there's no way we can do whatever you think is required to meaningfully alter our supposed impact on the climate."
lucb1e 9y ago
Disappointing article. It starts with "don't wait until the event and hype are past, but talk about climate change now. The fact that there are record-breaking events so often isn't normal." Then it continues to elaborate on politics, politics and politics. So, how abnormal is it? How often should we expect record-breaking events? If I remember correctly, the world was warming up already as part of its natural cycle. Maybe these record-breaking events are quite normal in this period. I don't think so, and I think denying climate change is a dumb thing, but an article that spends ten paragraphs on politics with no exploration of any evidence is just useless and only fuels the political side of the discussion without convincing anyone. My dad for example cares little about this, and numbers like "three degrees Celsius worldwide over a decade" don't sound like much, but the number of times we hear "record-breaking event" on the news is a very tangible thing that could have been a good argument. But alas.
- rocqua 9y ago
  > the world was warming up already as part of its natural cycle Do you think climate change is man made? I agree strongly with the rest of your post, the article was way to political and could've supported the claim 'warmer earth -> more storms'. But those positions are easily supported, which makes the lack of such support even more egregious.
  - lucb1e 9y ago
    > Do you think climate change is man made? Largely. I don't know enough about it to cite any accurate figures, but from what I remember it was warming up perhaps half a degree per century and now, over the last half a century, it increased two degrees. Something in that order. So the climate would have been slowly changing and an ice age would follow the heat period eventually, but extrapolating we'd have an ice age (or something else that's disruptive for mankind) in two centuries or so instead of in a few hundred thousand years.
mcot2 9y ago
I'm interested in sea level rise and warmer oceans as direct catalysts for more powerful storms with larger impacts occurring more frequently. It seems like our models for predicting major hurricane events may be flawed. In Harvey's case there was an intensification in the last day or so before landfall that caught many experts by surprise. It also came back out to sea and was able to reenergize stronger and faster in the warmer waters. These are troubling details that make me question our grasp on predicting the occurrence and strength of these types of storms.
rocqua 9y ago
> Which means there is a moral imperative for informed, caring people to name the real root causes behind this crisis — connecting the dots between climate pollution, systemic racism, underfunding of social services, and overfunding of police. I see the obvious relevance of climate change and perhaps social services, but I don't see how systemic racism is a factor in the tragedy of the storm Harvey. Certainly, the article provides no context. For rebuilding, it is likely to be an issue, but it is almost defeatist to assume ahead of time and include it in the current tragedy.
liberte82 9y ago
These conversations are endless and repetitive. Both sides are fully entrenched in their positions and I don't know how we can come back to having productive discussions on this topic when both sides have already decided what they believe to be true. How can we talk about anything when we don't agree on the facts?
- amoorthy 9y ago
  To be honest, I'm learning a lot from the comments on this thread. I appreciate climate change skeptics speaking up because I know it's not a popular position to take. I also appreciate where everyone has added highly credible citations to back up their claims. For those who struggle to understand skeptics point of view take a look at Michael Crichton's interview on Charlie Rose. This was the first time I came to appreciate the views of climate change skeptics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh4dIkEyfd0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh4dIkEyfd0 Essentially he says yes the planet is warming but the impact that will have is unclear and models suggesting a high degree of certainty are not being honest. (I don't think this is the same FUD of cigarette companies as some have suggested above). An even quicker way to understand skeptics is to read this blog: http://theparadoxproject.org/blog-1/2017/6/6/the-tribes-of-climate-change http://theparadoxproject.org/blog-1/2017/6/6/the-tribes-of-c.... The 5 points on climate change, and where skeptics vs. scientists differ, is clearly laid out. Essentially liberals and conservatives largely agree on the facts but differ on the policies that can help.
  - liberte82 9y ago
    I guess I feel it would be easier to trust the motives of skeptics if they weren't constantly shifting the goalposts and fighting the data. A couple years ago there was plenty of denial that climate change was happening at all. Now the data has made that position indefensible so now they seek to cast doubt on what the impacts will be. I'm all for good science and skepticism, and for legitimate issues with the models. But all of this reeks of the same type of "science" that tobacco companies bankrolled to fight the lung cancer findings decades ago. Their motivations just make it very difficult to take them seriously.

54 points by cardamomo 9y ago

Harvey was a hurricane. It could have occurred anywhere on the Gulf Coast. There is no direct relationship between climate change and any particular named storm. To argue otherwise is to destroy one's credibility. The problems that exacerbated the disaster of Harvey are indeed linked to climate change, but not in the simple-minded way that Naomi Klein makes out. The economic factors that lead to high-density construction in flood zones are the same as those that drive the wasteful use of fossil fuel energy. Overpopulation, overbuilding, market-driven urban planning practices, shoddy construction intended to maximize profit and waste while minimizing safety--all of these underlie both climate change and the disaster in Houston. Raving about climate change as if every hurricane is a direct consequence is both intellectually ridiculous and it ignores the root cause: us and our wasteful, idiotic consumerism. If we understand that we, and not corporations or governments, are the root cause, we can fix climate change almost overnight by two simple expedients: stop having babies and stop buying things that we don't absolutely need. By doing so, we could exercise power over the corporations that we unfairly demonize. No company is going to dig oil out of the ground if the demand does not justify it. Klain's worst offence is being a stupid liberal, just like the ones who drove 36 hours or more one-way to join the protest at Standing Rock in gas-powered vehicles. Want to stop an oil pipeline? Stop using oil. It's easy: at least 80% of our energy use is wasted. Just cut the waste. When stupid liberals write articles like this, a backlash is inevitable. Want four more years of Trump? Want the alt-right marching in the streets? Keep writing articles like this. Instead, be a smart liberal. Start by having a look in the mirror.

toss892625 9y ago
'market-driven urban planning practices' National Flood Insurance Program subsidizes building in flood-prone areas. Doesn't sound very market-driven to me.
- danharaj 9y ago
  No true market.
  - honestoHeminway 9y ago
    If its bad, it never is.
    - danharaj 9y ago
      A market is a market, whether it's distorted or regulated or monopolized or captured or unhealthy. The fact that markets can behave poorly because they are embedded in the wider world is absolutely intrinsic to the concept of a market.
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        Yeah, I think it is a mistake to try and think about the market and the political environment as two separate spheres rather than deeply linked entities constantly influencing each other. There is no such thing as "free market" without a government creating the conditions for one, whether that means subsidizing flood insurance or creating a navy to force other countries to go along with free trade (a development largely coinciding with the rise of laissez-faire theory).
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
DennisP 9y ago
Not all cases of lung cancer are caused by smoking. There's no way to prove that a particular case of lung cancer was caused by smoking. Does that mean we shouldn't talk about lung cancer as a reason to avoid smoking?
mannykannot 9y ago
Nevertheless, now is the time to talk about climate change, and has been for some time.
mcot2 9y ago
I'm more interested in sea level rise and warmer oceans as direct catalysts for more powerful storms with larger impacts occurring more frequently. The fact that we indiscriminately build cities and industries close to the coast obviously doesn't help.
siculars 9y ago
Yes, overall, if you care that deeply about climate change you should not procreate - you may also consider an early exit for yourself. Then there is the eco-terrorist who will justify early exists for others by saving the planet. If you think those that supported Trump were bad now, just wait till "stupid liberals" start telling people who can and can not have babies. Good luck. Obviously, the above is ridiculous.
DarkKomunalec 9y ago
> stop having babies Most of the west has already drastically reduced the number of babies. All that happened is we were told we need immigration instead.
- mercurysmessage 9y ago
  I don't know why you insist on spreading this ignorance all over HN, this really isn't the place for your rhetoric.
  - DarkKomunalec 9y ago
    Ignorance? Well, please point out where I made an error - I'd be happy to correct it.
    - mercurysmessage 9y ago
      > All that happened is we were told we need immigration instead. You say this everywhere, we discussed this already. You have an unfounded, ignorant view of immigration. You are so locked into your position that it doesn't matter what you are shown, you will ignore it and instead fall back to your ignorant position. And please, tell me why a tech news aggregator is the place for ignorant anti-immigration rhetoric?
      - DarkKomunalec 9y ago
        So the error is... where? If you think I am beyond saving, at least point it out for the sake of any not-yet-lost souls reading.
        mercurysmessage 9y ago
        What is wrong with immigration? What do you have against people looking to move to new countries. When someone moves, they pay taxes, they work, they contribute to society. It's not easy to immigrate, and often smarter, better educated people are the ones who get to immigrate. It's a benefit for the country that gets a lot of immigrants (i.e. The US benefits from this a lot), and a detriment to the country that loses them. Often called brain drain. Employers can choose who to hire, a smart employer won't care if the candidate is born in the same country as you, it has absolutely no bearing on their quality as a human, or the work they complete. If you live in North America, aside from the aboriginals, everyone is descended from, or directly an immigrant. What makes you so much better than someone else looking to move? Again, a tech news aggregator is not a place for ignorant opinions on, frankly, humans. You also haven't answered why you feel this way.
emodendroket 9y ago
I completely disagree with this perspective. If I did the most carbon-neutral thing and jumped off a building tomorrow it still would not make a difference. And it has really grown wearisome to read "this is why Trump won!!" in response to literally any other perspective or action.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
sctb 9y ago
We're trying to have a thoughtful conversation here. Name calling, handwavey dismissals, and provocation just start flamewars. Please aim for a higher standard so we can have a better chance at a substantive discussion. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
jabv 9y ago
I appreciate your call to take a cause seriously by making changes in one's personal life. That said, every time I read someone advise "stop having babies" to combat climate change, I am reminded of the South Park episode wherein the overzealous hunters claim that deer overpopulation will cause some deer to die, so they need to kill the deer to prevent overpopulation and future deer deaths.

emodendroket 9y ago

Also worth talking about and springing from similar causes: wetland reduction has made the region more vulnerable to floods, as this local article highlighted a year ago. http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Houston-s-development-boom-and-reduction-of-8403838.php http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/a...

chiph 9y ago

Climate change is the most likely reason behind rising sea levels, however, Houston is far enough inland to not have gotten any storm surge. What happened was the storm stalled over top of the city instead of moving on through. This meant that it picked up water on the south-east side of the storm and dropped it on the north-west side, right over the neighborhoods. And did it over a couple of days. What it was .. was a severe rainfall event. And the photo she led with, with the people walking along the highway divider? Houston's road network is designed to be a last-resort flood buffer to collect rainwater temporarily until it can drain to the east into the ship canal. So yeah, that's going to happen. The good news is the $700+ million in FEMA money that was spent over the years since Katrina to prevent flooding at the city's medical centers appears to have worked. They stayed open.

emodendroket 9y ago
It was my understanding that climate change made events like hurricanes and extreme rainfall more likely.
- cpr 9y ago
  Except that the US has had 10 years free of serious storms. Doesn't quite fit the narrative.
  - 0xfeba 9y ago
    Please define "serious", as the US has definitely had multiple storms in the past 10 years.
    - Turing_Machine 9y ago
      See the link I posted above. Before this storm, the last hurricane of Category 3 or greater to strike the United States was Wilma, in 2005. The last Category 5 storm to strike the United States was Andrew, in 1992.
      - 9y ago

diego_moita 9y ago

There are a lot of things more crucial than climate change. There are towns with no building and zoning regulations, bad infrastructure for water drainage and few resources for tragedy prevention. Low taxes and deregulation are very nice in the short run. But then comes what statisticians call black swans and you understand why you needed them. New Orleans and Houston are Gulf Coast cities, they should expect hurricanes and should build accordingly. Just as much as California builds expecting earthquakes. France and Germany have a much bigger population density and lots of floods but a lot less fatalities. Maybe they know something about how to build cities.

zimpenfish 9y ago
France doesn't get anywhere even close to what Harvey dumped on Houston. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40554842 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40554842 - Paris got 54mm of rain - "heaviest July deluge on record", "the equivalent of 27 days of rainfall". Harvey has dumped 25x that (51" and rising) on Houston. If you dumped half that on Paris, I guarantee it would be a national disaster on the same scale.
chiph 9y ago
Funny that you mention zoning - Houston has none. There's a guy living next door to an amusement park and during the summer has to listen to the screams of the adjacent roller coaster riders every 2.5 minutes. It's just an accepted part of living there. However, Houston does have building codes, and structures must withstand 130-150 mph winds, depending on location and other factors. So new-construction buildings and those undergoing significant renovations must have things like hurricane-rated glazing, and roof ties to prevent them from being blown off. https://edocs.publicworks.houstontx.gov/documents/divisions/planning/enforcement/1110_design_criteria_coh_building_code.pdf https://edocs.publicworks.houstontx.gov/documents/divisions/...

bmmayer1 9y ago

Two things to note here: - Naomi Klein is a well-known leftist activist and author with a clear agenda. Take what she writes with a grain of salt. - Yes, it's important to think about climate change and how it may impact weather patterns. But no serious climate scientist would ever credit singular weather events to global climate trends, which take decades to evolve. It's lazy to use a hurricane to bolster climate change arguments for the same reason it's lazy to use a blizzard to bolster climate change skeptics.

DennisP 9y ago
This is like saying it's lazy to use lung cancer cases to bolster arguments against smoking, since there's no way to prove that a particular case of cancer was caused by smoking.
- bmmayer1 9y ago
  As long as you are comfortable with cigarette companies pointing to cancer-free smokers and saying "See! Smoking doesn't cause cancer!"
  - DennisP 9y ago
    Which they did for a while, but we didn't respond by abandoning the entire line of argument, which would have been silly.
rocqua 9y ago
Obviously, climate change is nowhere near 'the cause' of this storm. However, the pattern of there being more storms and floods is a clear consequence of climate change. Choosing this moment to drive home the need to reverse climate change makes sense. Which I think is the intention here. This is more about arguing 'climate change is bad' as opposed to 'climate change is real. And really, we don't need to be discussing the latter, it has been well established.
- Turing_Machine 9y ago

dogruck 9y ago

Anyone have proof that man's actions have significantly contributed to this storm's catastrophic power? The title feels like political click bait, to me. How about proactively preparing for these events? If you tell me, "there's no way we could prepare" I'll tell you "there's no way we can do whatever you think is required to meaningfully alter our supposed impact on the climate."

lucb1e 9y ago

Disappointing article. It starts with "don't wait until the event and hype are past, but talk about climate change now. The fact that there are record-breaking events so often isn't normal." Then it continues to elaborate on politics, politics and politics. So, how abnormal is it? How often should we expect record-breaking events? If I remember correctly, the world was warming up already as part of its natural cycle. Maybe these record-breaking events are quite normal in this period. I don't think so, and I think denying climate change is a dumb thing, but an article that spends ten paragraphs on politics with no exploration of any evidence is just useless and only fuels the political side of the discussion without convincing anyone. My dad for example cares little about this, and numbers like "three degrees Celsius worldwide over a decade" don't sound like much, but the number of times we hear "record-breaking event" on the news is a very tangible thing that could have been a good argument. But alas.

rocqua 9y ago
> the world was warming up already as part of its natural cycle Do you think climate change is man made? I agree strongly with the rest of your post, the article was way to political and could've supported the claim 'warmer earth -> more storms'. But those positions are easily supported, which makes the lack of such support even more egregious.
- lucb1e 9y ago
  > Do you think climate change is man made? Largely. I don't know enough about it to cite any accurate figures, but from what I remember it was warming up perhaps half a degree per century and now, over the last half a century, it increased two degrees. Something in that order. So the climate would have been slowly changing and an ice age would follow the heat period eventually, but extrapolating we'd have an ice age (or something else that's disruptive for mankind) in two centuries or so instead of in a few hundred thousand years.

mcot2 9y ago

I'm interested in sea level rise and warmer oceans as direct catalysts for more powerful storms with larger impacts occurring more frequently. It seems like our models for predicting major hurricane events may be flawed. In Harvey's case there was an intensification in the last day or so before landfall that caught many experts by surprise. It also came back out to sea and was able to reenergize stronger and faster in the warmer waters. These are troubling details that make me question our grasp on predicting the occurrence and strength of these types of storms.

rocqua 9y ago

> Which means there is a moral imperative for informed, caring people to name the real root causes behind this crisis — connecting the dots between climate pollution, systemic racism, underfunding of social services, and overfunding of police. I see the obvious relevance of climate change and perhaps social services, but I don't see how systemic racism is a factor in the tragedy of the storm Harvey. Certainly, the article provides no context. For rebuilding, it is likely to be an issue, but it is almost defeatist to assume ahead of time and include it in the current tragedy.

liberte82 9y ago

These conversations are endless and repetitive. Both sides are fully entrenched in their positions and I don't know how we can come back to having productive discussions on this topic when both sides have already decided what they believe to be true. How can we talk about anything when we don't agree on the facts?

amoorthy 9y ago
To be honest, I'm learning a lot from the comments on this thread. I appreciate climate change skeptics speaking up because I know it's not a popular position to take. I also appreciate where everyone has added highly credible citations to back up their claims. For those who struggle to understand skeptics point of view take a look at Michael Crichton's interview on Charlie Rose. This was the first time I came to appreciate the views of climate change skeptics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh4dIkEyfd0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh4dIkEyfd0 Essentially he says yes the planet is warming but the impact that will have is unclear and models suggesting a high degree of certainty are not being honest. (I don't think this is the same FUD of cigarette companies as some have suggested above). An even quicker way to understand skeptics is to read this blog: http://theparadoxproject.org/blog-1/2017/6/6/the-tribes-of-climate-change http://theparadoxproject.org/blog-1/2017/6/6/the-tribes-of-c.... The 5 points on climate change, and where skeptics vs. scientists differ, is clearly laid out. Essentially liberals and conservatives largely agree on the facts but differ on the policies that can help.
- liberte82 9y ago
  I guess I feel it would be easier to trust the motives of skeptics if they weren't constantly shifting the goalposts and fighting the data. A couple years ago there was plenty of denial that climate change was happening at all. Now the data has made that position indefensible so now they seek to cast doubt on what the impacts will be. I'm all for good science and skepticism, and for legitimate issues with the models. But all of this reeks of the same type of "science" that tobacco companies bankrolled to fight the lung cancer findings decades ago. Their motivations just make it very difficult to take them seriously.