3 ms·

>will affect every coastal city in the world, not just Jakarta. 1) No duh. Who was that statement for? Nobody is debating that GW is terrible. But we're not t

>will affect every coastal city in the world, not just Jakarta. 1) No duh. Who was that statement for? Nobody is debating that GW is terrible. But we're not talking about global warming. 2) You're doing exactly what he's talking about. Shoehorning in global warming where it's not needed. You can discuss murder rates of a single city without shoehorning in murder rates of the "highest murder rate city in the world" every time. You can discuss diseases without having to shoehorn in that "cancer is the worst disease" into every conversation. The only connection to global warming in this case... is water. "Well, Atlantic City is experiencing low tourism rates." "THAT WON'T MATTER WHEN GLOBAL WARMING WASHES IT INTO THE OCEAN!" (etc)

kbenson 9y ago
While I agree with the sentiment that spurious connections should be avoided, I'm not really sure how to make sense of your examples. They seem to apply to a different type of article. This one is about Jakarta, which is anologous to the murder capital for costal problems. That said, while a spurious connection need not be drawn I. The article, it is relevant to compare and Co Trasylol the rate of change with global sea level rise (while pointibg out the distinction). Similarly to if we were talking about the murder capital of the world it would be relevant to compare and contrast to worldwide averages, and possibly less unique causes for that city.
- mistermann 9y ago
  > That said, while a spurious connection need not be drawn I. The article, it is relevant to compare and Co Trasylol the rate of change with global sea level rise Isn't that the very argument though, that the article wasn't just making reference to global warming endangering Jakarta, but was leading the article with saying Jakarta was primarily in trouble because of global warming, when the biggest immediate issue is sinking due to use of groundwater?
  - kbenson 9y ago
    That's all just a setup to make it obvious how large the problem is. It easily overshadows climate change for this one city, and they use climate change to illustrate that. After the talk about global warming in the first couple of paragraphs, it says this: But global warming turned out not to be the only culprit behind the historic floods that overran Rasdiono’s bodega and much of the rest of Jakarta in 2007. The problem, it turned out, was that the city itself is sinking. In fact, Jakarta is sinking faster than any other big city on the planet, faster, even, than climate change is causing the sea to rise — so surreally fast that rivers sometimes flow upstream, ordinary rains regularly swamp neighborhoods and buildings slowly disappear underground, swallowed by the earth. The main cause: Jakartans are digging illegal wells, drip by drip draining the underground aquifers on which the city rests — like deflating a giant cushion underneath it. About 40 percent of Jakarta now lies below sea level.

kbenson 9y ago

While I agree with the sentiment that spurious connections should be avoided, I'm not really sure how to make sense of your examples. They seem to apply to a different type of article. This one is about Jakarta, which is anologous to the murder capital for costal problems. That said, while a spurious connection need not be drawn I. The article, it is relevant to compare and Co Trasylol the rate of change with global sea level rise (while pointibg out the distinction). Similarly to if we were talking about the murder capital of the world it would be relevant to compare and contrast to worldwide averages, and possibly less unique causes for that city.

mistermann 9y ago
> That said, while a spurious connection need not be drawn I. The article, it is relevant to compare and Co Trasylol the rate of change with global sea level rise Isn't that the very argument though, that the article wasn't just making reference to global warming endangering Jakarta, but was leading the article with saying Jakarta was primarily in trouble because of global warming, when the biggest immediate issue is sinking due to use of groundwater?
- kbenson 9y ago
  That's all just a setup to make it obvious how large the problem is. It easily overshadows climate change for this one city, and they use climate change to illustrate that. After the talk about global warming in the first couple of paragraphs, it says this: But global warming turned out not to be the only culprit behind the historic floods that overran Rasdiono’s bodega and much of the rest of Jakarta in 2007. The problem, it turned out, was that the city itself is sinking. In fact, Jakarta is sinking faster than any other big city on the planet, faster, even, than climate change is causing the sea to rise — so surreally fast that rivers sometimes flow upstream, ordinary rains regularly swamp neighborhoods and buildings slowly disappear underground, swallowed by the earth. The main cause: Jakartans are digging illegal wells, drip by drip draining the underground aquifers on which the city rests — like deflating a giant cushion underneath it. About 40 percent of Jakarta now lies below sea level.