4 ms·

The article's opening sentence: > If the summer heat, followed by Hurricane Dorian, hasn’t convinced you that climate change is real, probably nothing will. H

by spodek 7y ago

The article's opening sentence: > If the summer heat, followed by Hurricane Dorian, hasn’t convinced you that climate change is real, probably nothing will. However big they seemed compared to the past, they're nothing compared to the future, though everything we do affects it. We can still avoid some of the worst.

hnarn 7y ago
My biggest gripe with that type of argumentation is that it plays into the idea that weather and climate are pretty much the same thing, when they really aren't.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  Yeah, if you get people used to that kind of argument, get ready for absolutely zero belief in global warming next time we have a cold winter preceeded by no hurricane.
- goatlover 7y ago
  Also because correlation isn't causation. An instance of a hurricane or a warmer summer by itself doesn't prove anything. That's poor science journalism. You need trends and models to demonstrate climate change, not an instance of undesirable weather. It's not like hurricanes or warm summers never happened before.
- cos2pi 7y ago
  Agreed, this has repeatedly been one of the biggest failings in communicating the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate change is not a single event, nor a cluster of events, that occur(s) over a summer. Strong hurricanes have occurred well before Dorian [1]. So have heat waves [2]. Extreme weather happens. The change in the frequency of (some) extreme events can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change, but a single event cannot. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1935_Labor_Day_hurricane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1935_Labor_Day_hurricane [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_North_American_heat_wave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_North_American_heat_wave
- adj83 7y ago
  climate (if it exists at all) is the average of weather data.
whatshisface 7y ago
That's kind of a bad way to open it, because in the absence of other information a hot summer followed by a hurricane absolutely would not convince anybody of global warming.
- gameswithgo 7y ago
  it is a bad way to open for logical people, but given how effective industry has been at making people skeptical of climate change with exactly those bad kind of arguments, maybe appealing to the emotions is the way to actually make things happen? I don't like it but I would roll with it if that is the pragmatic solution.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    If one side is right and the other side is wrong, they are unequally matched in the rational debate but equally matched in the emotional debate. The pro-carbon side is just as capable, if not more capable, of putting slanted articles in the news and filling Reddit with incensed comments as the anti-carbon side. Why would the side that is right want to throw away their advantage and become wrong?
    - gameswithgo 7y ago
      I don't know man, I've seen irrational people win a lot lately in the political world, so I'm not convinced that just being rational will work. I've seen people calmly argue rationally about climate change for 20 years now with negative progress. How do you propose to win?
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - justsubmit 7y ago
    > I don't like it but I would roll with it if that is the pragmatic solution. So, to be clear, your "pragmatic" solution is to deceive the public, because you think you are smarter than they are. Well, you're about 23 years behind: On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. --Stephen Schneider in APS News, Aug/Sep 1996, p. 5. Which raises the question: what if you are one of the public?
Reedx 7y ago
The notion that weather == climate is such a terrible argument and framing. It immediately devolves the conversation into anecdotes about the weather. Resulting in endless gridlock, getting nothing done aside from increasing outrage and spectacle.
merpnderp 7y ago
I think I'd like to know more about hurricane trends and strengths. Trends in hurricane strength and frequency as the only useful metrics as damage done has more to do with where and what we build. But I guess if I were a NYT's reader I wouldn't even think about asking these questions, I'd just yell ERMEGERD Dorian and start trash talking anyone who doesn't immediately panic.
justsubmit 7y ago
> However big they seemed compared to the past, they're nothing compared to the future That is not a scientific claim.
- cldellow 7y ago
  Eh, perhaps not as phrased, but it's a scientific claim made by the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 C. From the chapter 3.3.6: > There is thus limited evidence that the global number of tropical cyclones will be lower under 2°C compared to 1.5°C of global warming, but with an increase in the number of very intense cyclones (low confidence). The qualifiers are important - they're not as confident about this claim as others, but feel the risk of it being true given that there is some scientific support for it, merits it being mentioned so people can make informed decisions.
  - justsubmit 7y ago
    That's not a scientific claim, because it's not falsifiable. It's a pseudoscientific one, based on computer models that have not proven accurate, and which they admit low confidence in. Therefore, to say, "However big they seemed compared to the past, they're nothing compared to the future," is clearly unscientific, alarmist propaganda. Of course, it's not surprising, given that some scientists have advocated misleading the public on this matter for over 20 years.[0] 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21115712 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21115712

by spodek 7y ago

hnarn 7y ago

My biggest gripe with that type of argumentation is that it plays into the idea that weather and climate are pretty much the same thing, when they really aren't.

whatshisface 7y ago
Yeah, if you get people used to that kind of argument, get ready for absolutely zero belief in global warming next time we have a cold winter preceeded by no hurricane.
goatlover 7y ago
Also because correlation isn't causation. An instance of a hurricane or a warmer summer by itself doesn't prove anything. That's poor science journalism. You need trends and models to demonstrate climate change, not an instance of undesirable weather. It's not like hurricanes or warm summers never happened before.
cos2pi 7y ago
Agreed, this has repeatedly been one of the biggest failings in communicating the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate change is not a single event, nor a cluster of events, that occur(s) over a summer. Strong hurricanes have occurred well before Dorian [1]. So have heat waves [2]. Extreme weather happens. The change in the frequency of (some) extreme events can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change, but a single event cannot. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1935_Labor_Day_hurricane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1935_Labor_Day_hurricane [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_North_American_heat_wave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_North_American_heat_wave
adj83 7y ago
climate (if it exists at all) is the average of weather data.

whatshisface 7y ago

That's kind of a bad way to open it, because in the absence of other information a hot summer followed by a hurricane absolutely would not convince anybody of global warming.

gameswithgo 7y ago
it is a bad way to open for logical people, but given how effective industry has been at making people skeptical of climate change with exactly those bad kind of arguments, maybe appealing to the emotions is the way to actually make things happen? I don't like it but I would roll with it if that is the pragmatic solution.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  If one side is right and the other side is wrong, they are unequally matched in the rational debate but equally matched in the emotional debate. The pro-carbon side is just as capable, if not more capable, of putting slanted articles in the news and filling Reddit with incensed comments as the anti-carbon side. Why would the side that is right want to throw away their advantage and become wrong?
  - gameswithgo 7y ago
    I don't know man, I've seen irrational people win a lot lately in the political world, so I'm not convinced that just being rational will work. I've seen people calmly argue rationally about climate change for 20 years now with negative progress. How do you propose to win?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- justsubmit 7y ago
  > I don't like it but I would roll with it if that is the pragmatic solution. So, to be clear, your "pragmatic" solution is to deceive the public, because you think you are smarter than they are. Well, you're about 23 years behind: On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. --Stephen Schneider in APS News, Aug/Sep 1996, p. 5. Which raises the question: what if you are one of the public?

Reedx 7y ago

The notion that weather == climate is such a terrible argument and framing. It immediately devolves the conversation into anecdotes about the weather. Resulting in endless gridlock, getting nothing done aside from increasing outrage and spectacle.

merpnderp 7y ago

I think I'd like to know more about hurricane trends and strengths. Trends in hurricane strength and frequency as the only useful metrics as damage done has more to do with where and what we build. But I guess if I were a NYT's reader I wouldn't even think about asking these questions, I'd just yell ERMEGERD Dorian and start trash talking anyone who doesn't immediately panic.

justsubmit 7y ago

> However big they seemed compared to the past, they're nothing compared to the future That is not a scientific claim.

cldellow 7y ago
Eh, perhaps not as phrased, but it's a scientific claim made by the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 C. From the chapter 3.3.6: > There is thus limited evidence that the global number of tropical cyclones will be lower under 2°C compared to 1.5°C of global warming, but with an increase in the number of very intense cyclones (low confidence). The qualifiers are important - they're not as confident about this claim as others, but feel the risk of it being true given that there is some scientific support for it, merits it being mentioned so people can make informed decisions.
- justsubmit 7y ago
  That's not a scientific claim, because it's not falsifiable. It's a pseudoscientific one, based on computer models that have not proven accurate, and which they admit low confidence in. Therefore, to say, "However big they seemed compared to the past, they're nothing compared to the future," is clearly unscientific, alarmist propaganda. Of course, it's not surprising, given that some scientists have advocated misleading the public on this matter for over 20 years.[0] 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21115712 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21115712