6 ms·

No mention of climate change in the article.

lgeorget 7y ago
Arguably, it's better that way. Confusing meteorology with climatology is the favourite fallacy of climatosceptics. EDIT: Replaced "argument" by "fallacy"
- TallGuyShort 7y ago
  Example: across much of the US in the last few years there have been record colds because of polar vortexes. A few weeks of record colds doesn't negate climate change. A few weeks of record heat isn't the proof of it either. I keep saying that ocean acidification needs to be the forefront of the argument more. The data is so much clearer and dramatic that it's so much harder to deny the harm being done by greenhouse gases. "It's hot today" is a terrible way to start a discussion with someone who doesn't believe in global warming, just like "it snowed today" is a terrible counter-argument from them.
  - coldpie 7y ago
    > Example: across much of the US in the last few years there have been record colds because of polar vortexes. A few weeks of record colds doesn't negate climate change. A few weeks of record heat isn't the proof of it either. I don't know about these polar vortexes in particular, but climate change predicts wider swings in both directions, as there is more energy in the system. In other words, the vortex would not have gone as far south if it had had less energy.
    - TallGuyShort 7y ago
      Exactly - there's still plenty of people calling it "global warming" mocking people who don't understand or believe the science. We've hit the point where most (or at least more) people agree with the conclusions of the scientific consensus, but they don't remotely understand it, and they're mocking other people who don't understand it, and all we're achieving is getting a bunch of strawman arguments out there that are easy to discredit. If I may share a simpler analog, it's like when I see people on social media mocking flat-earthers and saying, "how do you think cell phones work if satellites aren't real?" Okay - you agree the earth is near-spherical. That's great. But your lack of actual understanding just gave the flat-earthers a chance to point out that cell phones don't actually use orbiting satellites, make you look like you don't know what you're talking about, and win the argument. Now somebody who also doesn't understand is questioning the scientific consensus even more strongly.
jakoblorz 7y ago
weather != climate
- jurmous 7y ago
  Weather is not climate but record after record after record for years in a row is climate change. https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/the-10-hottest-global-years-on-record https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/the-10-hotte...
- ilikehurdles 7y ago
  It's a nice equation. Here's another: car crashes != driving. Despite this being technically true, let's not pretend that the left side is independent from the right.
  - parsnips 7y ago
    Let's remember that equation the next time Arctic ice field expands...
MuffinFlavored 7y ago
I don't get why climate change is disputed. It's obvious that as society grows, we have increase CO2 output through record levels of burning fossil fuels. > Energy arrives from the sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation. The Earth then emits some of this energy as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 'capture' some of this heat, then re-emit it in all directions - including back to the Earth's surface. https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enha...
- ilikehurdles 7y ago
  Because energy companies and "free market"/"prosperity" thinktank lobbying groups dump a ton of resources into getting politicians and media moguls to broadcast well-known lies. It was never an organic movement.
  - smichael 7y ago
    The https://www.criticalfrequency.org/drilled https://www.criticalfrequency.org/drilled podcast is a great primer on this.
- starbugs 7y ago
  It's a hard sell. It's devastating to think about, very negative, and it almost always means that people need to quit doing things they've come to love. It's like trying to get someone who's addicted off their drugs and telling them that even if they are successful with quitting, it won't protect them unless all others stop doing drugs simultaneously.
  - eropple 7y ago
    It's worse than things they've come to love. It's things they think are normal and necessary.
    - adnzzzzZ 7y ago
y4mi 7y ago
I was talking about climate change with a co-worker on Monday. He still doesn't "believe" in it. "Nobody can know if it's happening" and "earth went through countless high and low temperature passes over the years. It's nothing special" It was a great example of today's reality we live in. It's truly an age of misinformation.
- arm64future 7y ago
  >He still doesn't "believe" in it. Here's a clue: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm
  - mempko 7y ago
    It's called a forecast. So what if they are off by only 10 years? Does it matter? Because it's certainly going to be ice-free way before 2100. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-i... This year is looking like it will set the record for lowest yet. My guess is that it will be ice-free in September within 5 years because it's an exponential decay. Note "ice-free" is agreed to mean less than 1mil square kilometers.
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      > Note "ice-free" is agreed to mean less than 1mil square kilometers. Agreed by who? You're trying to convince the deniers; giving them a massive out like that isn't tactically sound. "Oh their prediction was wrong so they changed the terms - climate change is a conspiracy and they're lying to our faces, can't you see?!?!"
      - mempko 7y ago
        Deniers have already switched from "It's not happening" to "It's happening but not man made". I'm seeing some already switch to "It's is man made, but it's a good thing! look, the world is getting greener!". I was going to say "It's an endless fight", but it isn't true. The fight will end when we all die. The horrors that are coming are unspeakable. During the famines in Russia during the civil-war starving mothers ate their children. Famine is our future. In the USA, we are already locking up climate refugees, many children, in cages. Things are already starting to get bad and we aren't at 1.5C, or 2C, or the 3-4C we are projected to hit by end of the century.
mturmon 7y ago
The former accuweather CEO was appointed to head the National Weather Service by Donald Trump. This man had in the past lobbied to forbid the NWS from releasing weather data directly to the public, and gotten Rick Santorum (his home state senator) to propose a bill to that effect.
parsnips 7y ago
I thought conflating climate and weather is what "deniers" do?

Arguably, it's better that way. Confusing meteorology with climatology is the favourite fallacy of climatosceptics. EDIT: Replaced "argument" by "fallacy"

TallGuyShort 7y ago
Example: across much of the US in the last few years there have been record colds because of polar vortexes. A few weeks of record colds doesn't negate climate change. A few weeks of record heat isn't the proof of it either. I keep saying that ocean acidification needs to be the forefront of the argument more. The data is so much clearer and dramatic that it's so much harder to deny the harm being done by greenhouse gases. "It's hot today" is a terrible way to start a discussion with someone who doesn't believe in global warming, just like "it snowed today" is a terrible counter-argument from them.
- coldpie 7y ago
  > Example: across much of the US in the last few years there have been record colds because of polar vortexes. A few weeks of record colds doesn't negate climate change. A few weeks of record heat isn't the proof of it either. I don't know about these polar vortexes in particular, but climate change predicts wider swings in both directions, as there is more energy in the system. In other words, the vortex would not have gone as far south if it had had less energy.
  - TallGuyShort 7y ago
    Exactly - there's still plenty of people calling it "global warming" mocking people who don't understand or believe the science. We've hit the point where most (or at least more) people agree with the conclusions of the scientific consensus, but they don't remotely understand it, and they're mocking other people who don't understand it, and all we're achieving is getting a bunch of strawman arguments out there that are easy to discredit. If I may share a simpler analog, it's like when I see people on social media mocking flat-earthers and saying, "how do you think cell phones work if satellites aren't real?" Okay - you agree the earth is near-spherical. That's great. But your lack of actual understanding just gave the flat-earthers a chance to point out that cell phones don't actually use orbiting satellites, make you look like you don't know what you're talking about, and win the argument. Now somebody who also doesn't understand is questioning the scientific consensus even more strongly.

jakoblorz 7y ago

weather != climate

jurmous 7y ago
Weather is not climate but record after record after record for years in a row is climate change. https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/the-10-hottest-global-years-on-record https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/the-10-hotte...
ilikehurdles 7y ago
It's a nice equation. Here's another: car crashes != driving. Despite this being technically true, let's not pretend that the left side is independent from the right.
- parsnips 7y ago
  Let's remember that equation the next time Arctic ice field expands...

MuffinFlavored 7y ago

I don't get why climate change is disputed. It's obvious that as society grows, we have increase CO2 output through record levels of burning fossil fuels. > Energy arrives from the sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation. The Earth then emits some of this energy as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 'capture' some of this heat, then re-emit it in all directions - including back to the Earth's surface. https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enha...

ilikehurdles 7y ago
Because energy companies and "free market"/"prosperity" thinktank lobbying groups dump a ton of resources into getting politicians and media moguls to broadcast well-known lies. It was never an organic movement.
- smichael 7y ago
  The https://www.criticalfrequency.org/drilled https://www.criticalfrequency.org/drilled podcast is a great primer on this.
starbugs 7y ago
It's a hard sell. It's devastating to think about, very negative, and it almost always means that people need to quit doing things they've come to love. It's like trying to get someone who's addicted off their drugs and telling them that even if they are successful with quitting, it won't protect them unless all others stop doing drugs simultaneously.
- eropple 7y ago
  It's worse than things they've come to love. It's things they think are normal and necessary.
  - adnzzzzZ 7y ago

y4mi 7y ago

I was talking about climate change with a co-worker on Monday. He still doesn't "believe" in it. "Nobody can know if it's happening" and "earth went through countless high and low temperature passes over the years. It's nothing special" It was a great example of today's reality we live in. It's truly an age of misinformation.

arm64future 7y ago
>He still doesn't "believe" in it. Here's a clue: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm
- mempko 7y ago
  It's called a forecast. So what if they are off by only 10 years? Does it matter? Because it's certainly going to be ice-free way before 2100. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-i... This year is looking like it will set the record for lowest yet. My guess is that it will be ice-free in September within 5 years because it's an exponential decay. Note "ice-free" is agreed to mean less than 1mil square kilometers.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    > Note "ice-free" is agreed to mean less than 1mil square kilometers. Agreed by who? You're trying to convince the deniers; giving them a massive out like that isn't tactically sound. "Oh their prediction was wrong so they changed the terms - climate change is a conspiracy and they're lying to our faces, can't you see?!?!"
    - mempko 7y ago
      Deniers have already switched from "It's not happening" to "It's happening but not man made". I'm seeing some already switch to "It's is man made, but it's a good thing! look, the world is getting greener!". I was going to say "It's an endless fight", but it isn't true. The fight will end when we all die. The horrors that are coming are unspeakable. During the famines in Russia during the civil-war starving mothers ate their children. Famine is our future. In the USA, we are already locking up climate refugees, many children, in cages. Things are already starting to get bad and we aren't at 1.5C, or 2C, or the 3-4C we are projected to hit by end of the century.

mturmon 7y ago

The former accuweather CEO was appointed to head the National Weather Service by Donald Trump. This man had in the past lobbied to forbid the NWS from releasing weather data directly to the public, and gotten Rick Santorum (his home state senator) to propose a bill to that effect.

parsnips 7y ago

I thought conflating climate and weather is what "deniers" do?