4 ms·

That’s the point of competitive academia, no? To have people try different stuff and to converge to a pratical solution when there’s no provably exact one. So o

That’s the point of competitive academia, no? To have people try different stuff and to converge to a pratical solution when there’s no provably exact one. So of course climate scientists will try a universe of models to get better at predicting. You put your comment as long, well thought out description of what is happening, but it’s frankly embarrassing. Climate scientists don’t disagree fundamentally at all, and we can all be grateful if their models get better and better. So please, if you dismiss policy proposals as braindead when they’re trying to accomodate for our collective failures and the learnings we had during the last 30+ years, be better than that.

squirrelicus 7y ago
The science question is fun because I'm not sure who you're arguing against. Scientists are doing good work fighting an intractable problem. And their results are contradictory and disappointing so far. But more interestingly, where did we fail exactly? And how is giving totalitarian control of the economy to a 20-something, easily manipulated bartender with a 400s credit score going to make anything better?
- euroPoor 7y ago
  > And their results are contradictory and disappointing so far. Absolutely not. Where did we fail? Listening to scientists 50 years ago that had the data already. Changing our infrastructure while we had the time. Signing treaties for 30 years instead of incentivizing sustainable business. I'm not going to comment on your ad hominem. Like yeah, people from all walks of life being able to participate in politics is called DEMOCRACY, I think you heard of it. It's also entirely offtopic for you to keep going on that.
- mcphage 7y ago
  > And how is giving totalitarian control of the economy to a 20-something, easily manipulated bartender with a 400s credit score going to make anything better? Well, it's good to see that you're responding to actual policy suggestions and not just pulling shit your of your ass.
squirrelicus 7y ago
Okay okay okay, check this out. (Yes global mean ocean temperatures are rising, but at least in the USA, climate change appears to be making the country have milder weather) > New York City has not had a daily high temperature above 100 degrees since 2012, and it has had only five such days since 2002. However, in a previous 18-year span from 1984 through 2001, New York City had nine days at 100 degrees or higher. When the power went out in New York City earlier this month, the temperature didn't even get to 100 degrees - it was 95, which is not extreme. For comparison, there were 12 days at 95 degrees or higher in 1999 alone. > Kansas City, Missouri, for example, experienced an average of 18.7 days a year at 100 degrees or higher during the 1930s, compared to just 5.5 a year over the last 10 years. And over the last 30 years, Kansas City has averaged only 4.8 days a year at 100 degrees or higher, which is only one-quarter of the frequency of days at 100 degrees or higher in the 1930s. > Here is a fact rarely, if ever, mentioned: 26 of the 50 states set their all-time high temperature records during the 1930s that still stand (some have since been tied). And an additional 11 state all-time high temperature records were set before 1930 and only two states have all-time record high temperatures that were set in the 21st century (South Dakota and South Carolina). > So 37 of the 50 states have an all-time high temperature record not exceeded for more than 75 years. Given these numbers and the decreased frequency of days of 100 degrees or higher, it cannot be said that either the frequency or magnitude of heat waves is more common today. Source: https://m.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/realimpactofweatherwithdrjoelnmyers/throwing-cold-water-on-extreme-heat-hype/70008963 https://m.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/realimpactofweath... Like seriously, what are we predicting again?
- euroPoor 7y ago
  All I have to say is: weather ≠ climate. How are you arguing on a subject you have no clue about?

squirrelicus 7y ago

The science question is fun because I'm not sure who you're arguing against. Scientists are doing good work fighting an intractable problem. And their results are contradictory and disappointing so far. But more interestingly, where did we fail exactly? And how is giving totalitarian control of the economy to a 20-something, easily manipulated bartender with a 400s credit score going to make anything better?

euroPoor 7y ago
> And their results are contradictory and disappointing so far. Absolutely not. Where did we fail? Listening to scientists 50 years ago that had the data already. Changing our infrastructure while we had the time. Signing treaties for 30 years instead of incentivizing sustainable business. I'm not going to comment on your ad hominem. Like yeah, people from all walks of life being able to participate in politics is called DEMOCRACY, I think you heard of it. It's also entirely offtopic for you to keep going on that.
mcphage 7y ago
> And how is giving totalitarian control of the economy to a 20-something, easily manipulated bartender with a 400s credit score going to make anything better? Well, it's good to see that you're responding to actual policy suggestions and not just pulling shit your of your ass.

squirrelicus 7y ago

Okay okay okay, check this out. (Yes global mean ocean temperatures are rising, but at least in the USA, climate change appears to be making the country have milder weather) > New York City has not had a daily high temperature above 100 degrees since 2012, and it has had only five such days since 2002. However, in a previous 18-year span from 1984 through 2001, New York City had nine days at 100 degrees or higher. When the power went out in New York City earlier this month, the temperature didn't even get to 100 degrees - it was 95, which is not extreme. For comparison, there were 12 days at 95 degrees or higher in 1999 alone. > Kansas City, Missouri, for example, experienced an average of 18.7 days a year at 100 degrees or higher during the 1930s, compared to just 5.5 a year over the last 10 years. And over the last 30 years, Kansas City has averaged only 4.8 days a year at 100 degrees or higher, which is only one-quarter of the frequency of days at 100 degrees or higher in the 1930s. > Here is a fact rarely, if ever, mentioned: 26 of the 50 states set their all-time high temperature records during the 1930s that still stand (some have since been tied). And an additional 11 state all-time high temperature records were set before 1930 and only two states have all-time record high temperatures that were set in the 21st century (South Dakota and South Carolina). > So 37 of the 50 states have an all-time high temperature record not exceeded for more than 75 years. Given these numbers and the decreased frequency of days of 100 degrees or higher, it cannot be said that either the frequency or magnitude of heat waves is more common today. Source: https://m.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/realimpactofweatherwithdrjoelnmyers/throwing-cold-water-on-extreme-heat-hype/70008963 https://m.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/realimpactofweath... Like seriously, what are we predicting again?

euroPoor 7y ago
All I have to say is: weather ≠ climate. How are you arguing on a subject you have no clue about?