3 ms·

"Scientists Can Now Blame Individual Natural Disasters on Climate Change" There are two parts to that title: 1) "can now" implies that something significant i

"Scientists Can Now Blame Individual Natural Disasters on Climate Change" There are two parts to that title: 1) "can now" implies that something significant in scientific understanding has changed 2) "blame individual natural disasters on climate change" is clear #2 is flat out wrong because, see my quote above, the article makes it clear that the scientific consensus is still that individual events cannot be directly attributed to climate change. #1 is wrong because nothing has changed. Scientists can predict that the probability of extreme events in general is rising due to climate change but that is not proof that any specific event is attributable to climate change. That is not new. Nothing has changed in the consensus scientific position.

cryptoz 9y ago
> #2 is flat out wrong because, see my quote above, the article makes it clear that the scientific consensus is still that individual events cannot be directly attributed to climate change. Scientific consensus doesn't make something true. Climate change is true because we measure it, not because most scientists say it is. This is an active area of research, a brand-new area in fact, and making claims like "Storms cannot be blamed on climate change" is absolutely incorrect. We're still finding out the answers to those kinds of questions, and just now it's become potentially feasible to actually do it (blame climate change for a specific event). > #1 is wrong because nothing has changed. What? Of course things have changed. That's what this whole article is about. The methods are maturing and data access is growing - the nature of publishing a peer reviewed paper that blames all or part of an event on climate change is now an accepted practice and it wasn't before. This is change. I still see no issue at all with the headline. It is a perfect fit for the article and is not wrong in any way. Edit: I've been banned from HN for a while I guess, unable to comment any more. I'll respond quickly to the comment below: > > Scientific consensus doesn't make something true > This is the same argument the denialist use. I am not sure how it is relevant to anything. You cut up my paragraph and removed the context from my comment in order to make me look like a climate change denier. I'm not. Why did you do that? > > making claims like "Storms cannot be blamed on climate change" is absolutely incorrect > Nobody made that claim. I never said they did.
- saas_co_de 9y ago
  > Scientific consensus doesn't make something true This is the same argument the denialist use. I am not sure how it is relevant to anything. > making claims like "Storms cannot be blamed on climate change" is absolutely incorrect Nobody made that claim. There is an actual scientifically supportable position in between the two extremes you are proposing which is that in general the risk of extreme weather events is increasing due to climate change but no individual extreme weather event can be specifically attributed to climate change.
- shifter 9y ago
  War is peace
  - dang 9y ago
    Please don't post unsubstantive comments here, especially in flamewars. We ban accounts that repeatedly violate the site guidelines, so please read them and abide by them when commenting here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

cryptoz 9y ago

> #2 is flat out wrong because, see my quote above, the article makes it clear that the scientific consensus is still that individual events cannot be directly attributed to climate change. Scientific consensus doesn't make something true. Climate change is true because we measure it, not because most scientists say it is. This is an active area of research, a brand-new area in fact, and making claims like "Storms cannot be blamed on climate change" is absolutely incorrect. We're still finding out the answers to those kinds of questions, and just now it's become potentially feasible to actually do it (blame climate change for a specific event). > #1 is wrong because nothing has changed. What? Of course things have changed. That's what this whole article is about. The methods are maturing and data access is growing - the nature of publishing a peer reviewed paper that blames all or part of an event on climate change is now an accepted practice and it wasn't before. This is change. I still see no issue at all with the headline. It is a perfect fit for the article and is not wrong in any way. Edit: I've been banned from HN for a while I guess, unable to comment any more. I'll respond quickly to the comment below: > > Scientific consensus doesn't make something true > This is the same argument the denialist use. I am not sure how it is relevant to anything. You cut up my paragraph and removed the context from my comment in order to make me look like a climate change denier. I'm not. Why did you do that? > > making claims like "Storms cannot be blamed on climate change" is absolutely incorrect > Nobody made that claim. I never said they did.

saas_co_de 9y ago
> Scientific consensus doesn't make something true This is the same argument the denialist use. I am not sure how it is relevant to anything. > making claims like "Storms cannot be blamed on climate change" is absolutely incorrect Nobody made that claim. There is an actual scientifically supportable position in between the two extremes you are proposing which is that in general the risk of extreme weather events is increasing due to climate change but no individual extreme weather event can be specifically attributed to climate change.
shifter 9y ago
War is peace
- dang 9y ago
  Please don't post unsubstantive comments here, especially in flamewars. We ban accounts that repeatedly violate the site guidelines, so please read them and abide by them when commenting here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.