32 ms·

I agree that global warming is real. Global warming is a problem. However... > If the summer heat, followed by Hurricane Dorian, hasn’t convinced you that clim

I agree that global warming is real. Global warming is a problem. However... > If the summer heat, followed by Hurricane Dorian, hasn’t convinced you that climate change is real, probably nothing will. That's an amazingly stupid comment. This is why global warming deniers exist, because people make these types of stupid comments. A hurricane strengthening and stalling on land is not linked to global warming. It's always happened and always will. What was hurricane Andrew then in 1992? What about Katrina 2005? How about in 2004 where 4 hurricanes hit Florida in a 6 week time span? I lived through that one. Hurricane Lorenzo, right now, is a better example due to where it's at in the Atlantic and its strength. Still not a great example, but better than Dorian. Dorian was technically a normal hurricane. Nothing that special or different. Devastating yes. But devastation is not an indicator of climate change. A higher number of hurricanes and higher than average number in Cat 4 and Cat 5. That's an indicator. And to be honest, this year has been pretty chill when it comes to hurricanes. Only one FL scare. Most years there are 3-5 scares by the end of September. We're only on L when it comes to named storms. Bad years in the past are around S by now. Hurricanes are named in order of the alphabet if you didn't know. In 2004, we went through the whole alphabet, plus some. I agree global warming is happening. But this year's hurricane season does not show it.

tomp 7y ago
Funny enough, worst hurricane in recorded history (according to some metrics) happened in 1935! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1935_Labor_Day_hurricane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1935_Labor_Day_hurricane
wozniacki 7y ago
If the summer heat, followed by Hurricane Dorian, hasn’t convinced you that climate change is real, probably nothing will. I was stunned that such a callous, dismissive & low quality statement would even pass muster at The Grey Lady. Who's proof-reading these pieces? Pair it with a striking statistic from a reputable source, at the very least if youre going to make such a naked statement. Who is the piece trying to convince? The already convinced and dyed-in-the-wool card carrying eco-enthusiasts or the unconvinced and the leery crowd?
- justsubmit 7y ago
  If I may turn a phrase: If this NYT article hasn't convinced you that climate change propaganda is real, and that the NYT is not a reputable source, probably nothing will.
mfer 7y ago
I would suggest using something other than hurricanes (at least those in the Atlantic basin) as evidence of global warming. The existing observations aren't good for the support of global warming at this point [1]. To help aide in convincing more skeptics I would suggest observations that have held up under scrutiny. [1] https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/ https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
- corodra 7y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong. What happened in Alaska, that heat wave, was BEYOND normal. Not by a little, but by a lot. They crushed a whole bunch of heat records that week, right? Wouldn't that be the best poster child of global warming taking affect for at least 2019 (thus far)?
  - avar 7y ago
    No. There's scientific consensus on aggregate warming and overall destabilization of weather patterns. So we can say that generally speaking we'll have a higher chance of beating previous temperature records going forward. That doesn't work the other way around when looking at single weather events.
    - corodra 7y ago
      Yes, yes, weather and climate are two different things. It's like the analogy between a dog and a person walking the dog. The dog (weather) might weave all around in different crazy directions, but the human (climate) is the path you should be looking at. The Alaska heatwave was a decent symptom of the general change in climate, no? At least in better respects than a hurricane.
lowii 7y ago
> If the summer heat, followed by Hurricane Dorian, hasn’t convinced you that climate change is real, probably nothing will. Saying that is as dumb as saying global warming isn't real because there's still snow in winter.
dyslexit 7y ago
That's not at all why global warming deniers exist. The reason they exist is because the fossil fuel industry managed to make believing in climate change a political issue rather than a scientific one, which is why the denial is embraced by one party but not the other. The actual "arguments" don't matter, this one especially since it's impossible to tell if Dorian would've even existed or not had the climate not changed.
- corodra 7y ago
  Okay, I do agree. But misinformation due to sloppy broad brush strokes does not help. At all. It fuels what you just said. It gives them "See, see! They're wrong about this! What do they know? They're just making stuff up for their agenda!" And to be honest, I have to agree with that statement. Because that first line of the article is simply a "the sky is falling because I say so" statement. And remember, I do agree that global warming is happening. But because I believe the science, I have to be fair on all factual statements. No matter if that fact helps or hurts me. I have to be fair. It would have been smarter to talk about Alaska heat wave from the get-go that lasted, what was it, 7 to 9 days? I don't remember. That's WAY harder to dance around. Everyone can go "It got hot in Alaska? Weird... it got 90+ degrees hot? WTF? For how long? Holy shit!" Instead of a statement that amounted to "There was a hurricane in the Atlantic. Global warming is real."
  - dyslexit 7y ago
    You're right, and the comment from the article is definitely over the top. My only point is that sadly people would still be denying climate change no matter how perfectly presented the warnings are, and there's an obvious frustration, even anger, aimed at those responsible for this.
    - corodra 7y ago
      One thing that flat-earthers have taught me this past few years, you absolutely can't cure stupid. There will always be stupid ass people on the planet. However, I do know rational people who don't believe in global warming. Mostly, to the degree of being fearful. They do believe that climate patterns do change. They believe the Earth can get hot. They just don't think in 2050 Florida is going to wash out like some predictions said a few years ago. The reason, there's too many doomsayers that overblow claims or making mountains out of molehills. This article being one. This leads them to still stay on the fence or lean one way or the other. I'm generally a prudent individual. If I see potential problems ahead, I try to nip that problem in the bud. So even if I, hypothetically, didn't think we are on a crash course when it comes to global warming, I still think it would be good to make sure it never comes to that. Reversing the affects takes too long to let it happen. Best to curb CO2 production as soon as possible, just to be safe. But it's not handled like that at all. If I didn't have my own thoughts on the subject, I won't lie, I'd probably be a denier too. Too many global warming advocates have made some crazy claims with dates that never held up. They want to ban all these lifestyle activities that aren't even the low lying fruit. All in the name of "scaring people into action". That line of thought is archaic and dead. People don't function that way anymore. We need to try being rational about how we spread information. That way a majority of people who actually "change the world" and have "influence" agree and spread the word and ideas on making such change. First we stop making bullshit claims on global warming. Then we can get people to fully wrap their heads around the real research. Which, I know sounds like a lot. But, it worked in Florida elementary schools. I argue Florida public environmental education (at least in the 90s) was a super effective program. It never overblew anything or made sweeping claims over little things. I remember well that they always said "Bad things could happen if we don't do anything", not will. So yea, maybe I'm bias. But I just know articles like these aren't helping. And sadly, people who believe in global warming because of articles like these, are weak in faith. The first to give up and do nothing.
jfengel 7y ago
That statement seems accurate to me, but there's a lot wrapped up with it. What should have convinced people, decades ago, is the combination of well-attested theory and numerous lines of evidence. Anybody capable of being convinced -- which is to say, able to understand science and not ideologically blinded to it -- has needed no subsequent convincing. There are a lot of people who don't fit that category, and if they are to be persuaded at all, it won't be by the means that are used to convince the scientifically literate. For the illiterate, they might well be tipped by one summer's weather or one hurricane's damage. That's bad science, but the voting booth doesn't care whether your reasons are sound or not. The New York Times is reporting on policy as well as science: what people are going to choose to do. In that sense the statement is accurate. Those capable of being convinced by science are convinced; those who are moved by incorrect evidence have just received a big wad of it. The only ones who haven't reached the correct conclusion are driven by ideology, and won't be convinced by any evidence. We can bemoan the fact that so much of policy is decided on bad grounds, but that seems to be a fact of life. Most people don't understand science, and manufactured doubt can be used to sway them from the conclusions reached by science. If you care about getting things done in a democracy, you have to take them into account. That doesn't justify using the science badly, but that's not what's happening here. They're just reporting on the mechanisms by which people have reached their conclusions.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  >the combination of well-attested theory and numerous lines of evidence One time, I saw a graph of temperature over time. That's it. Nobody has ever tried to show me any other theory or evidence. Has anyone ever tried publicizing the science? I take issue with the "science has failed so now we have to be irrational" story because I am not convinced that the science has ever been tried.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - 7y ago
scragg 7y ago
I think the point of bringing up hurricane Dorian is the size/strength. It's not unique by itself but cat 4/5's are at an upward trend[1]. Also take a look at hurricane Barry[2] this year. It's a disturbance that came out of the continental US, became a hurricane in the gulf, and came back to strike the US. [1] https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/pix/user_images/tk/global_warm_hurr/Hurr_major_USland_count_w_Stats.png https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/pix/user_images... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Barry_(2019)#/media/File:Barry_2019_track.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Barry_(2019)#/media/...
- corodra 7y ago
  Big problem with that chart. Look where it ends. 2006. It looks like an upward trend. If you add the last decade it's missing, that trend won't exist. You know what, let put that together in BI really quick. I want to see if that trend holds true since it's missing the past decade of data.
  - scragg 7y ago
    Here is a larger timescale. Headings link to charts. https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html
    - corodra 7y ago
      Taking a look at the data, it's not that damning. Our upward swing really started in 1995 and hasn't increased since. 2005 was an outlying year, and the rest really aren't that much of a big deal. No real upward swing since 95. I will say our hurricane floor count is higher on average by 2-3. I have a hard time believing there were zero hurricanes some years. Meteorology and aeronautics really was useless before the 60s (compared to today). So, numbers before then are hard to take seriously and are probably understated. Our 5 year average of storms is trending down (slightly) since 08 as well. 10 year average peaked in 05 and has dropped since 2012. My grand point, hurricanes right now don't make good evidence for global warming. There are far better evidence points and general scientific knowledge about greenhouse gases. Using hurricane statistics is only going to lead to ammo for deniers as they don't pay attention to better evidence. Will hurricanes potentially intensify in both volume and strength? It's definitely possible if ocean temperatures rise on average. That's how hurricanes are "fueled". But right now, we don't have good evidence of that being a truth.
rmilejczz 7y ago
This natgeo article seems to disagree with you, claiming that higher upper ocean temps allowed Dorian to maintain a greater intensity than it would have otherwise while stalled over the Bahamas. Higher temps also contributed to Dorians overall strength. You make many arguments about prevalence but I’m not seeing that mentioned by others as a link to global warming, only peak intensity which absolutely is rising and absolutely contributed to Dorians overall devastation. More info here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/09/how-warm-water-fuels-a-hurricane/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/09/how-w...
- rmilejczz 7y ago
  Why is this comment downvoted? I’ve only been on HN for a few weeks but I’m constantly get downvoted when trying to act in good faith and engage in discussions. What am I doing wrong? It’s becoming frustrating, since none of these downvoters bother to explain what led them to downvote my comment in the first place.
  - justsubmit 7y ago
    It's downvoted because some random user with >=500 karma didn't like it and clicked the down arrow. That's all downvoting means here. There are no ethics for voting here. In effect, voting is simply a measure of whether random HN users were pleased or displeased by your comment. And you're not allowed to mention it, either. If your perfectly reasonable and polite comment gets downvoted to invisibility by random, angry users who won't tolerate diversity of opinion, then suck it up, comrade, and learn to please the hivemind--no complaining! Of course, certain very-high-karma users can get away with saying things that would be flagged and downvoted to death if said by anyone else. And that's what HN wants voting to be. Welcome to HN. Enjoy your stay, if you can.
jmcqk6 7y ago
>This is why global warming deniers exist, because people make these types of stupid comments. Oh, this is why they exist? Or is this just a convenient excuse? Either way 'some people don't make sense when describing X' is not a good reason to reject X.
- corodra 7y ago
  To be fair to anyone that denies something, if they don't directly observe it, why should they believe it? Especially if they have to alter their day to day lives around that statement? The media makes contradictory sweeping claims time and time again over small bits of data. Why should anyone believe "the science" they pose? With the media being the leaders of dialogue, why should people believe in something that alter's their day-to-day practice? I'm not even getting into the fossil-fuel fueled propaganda. Just a human nature perspective. Not being able to observe an action/event is meant to be suspect rather than held as doctrine. Again, I'm not saying global warming is a lie. I know it's real. Not a belief or held in faith. Just knowing. But part of the discourse as to why people don't believe it, I see from articles like the NYT article. It's just a realistic stance on the issue. Articles like these give zero benefit. Even those who believe in global warming are arguing against this article in HN. It definitely won't bring the deniers into the light.
  - jmcqk6 7y ago
    If you're looking to the media to provide a unified narrative on anything, you're on a fools errand. Fundamentally, the ability to understand the world involved critical thinking. The types of things we see from global warming deniers tends to be a kind of faux critical thought. Find some nugget of information that supports your cause, cling to it, and definitely do not attempt to gain some sort of comprehensive understanding of the subject. This is understandable in one sense - the world is extremely complicated, and one cannot form a deep understanding of all the things they need to interact with. The problem is people compensate for this by bullshitting themselves into believing they have some sort of understanding of said complex topic without putting in any of the work required to actually understand it. I don't know what the real name for it, but talking about 'the media' has become sort of like a code smell to me. "The media" doesn't exist as a unified thing, and that's almost certainly a good thing. Instead of being a useful phrase, it becomes a wild card for assigning responsibility for whatever the source thinks is wrong with the world.
modernista 7y ago
Can you please reconcile this statement: Dorian was technically a normal hurricane. with the following [The Labor Day Hurricane] was tied with Hurricane Dorian for the strongest landfalling Atlantic hurricane by maximum sustained winds, with winds of 185 mph (295 km/h) at landfall Or if not, at lease please stop calling people "stupid" for bringing up Dorian as an indication that perhaps we should be concerned about increasing frequency of severe tropical storms?

tomp 7y ago

Funny enough, worst hurricane in recorded history (according to some metrics) happened in 1935! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1935_Labor_Day_hurricane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1935_Labor_Day_hurricane

wozniacki 7y ago

If the summer heat, followed by Hurricane Dorian, hasn’t convinced you that climate change is real, probably nothing will. I was stunned that such a callous, dismissive & low quality statement would even pass muster at The Grey Lady. Who's proof-reading these pieces? Pair it with a striking statistic from a reputable source, at the very least if youre going to make such a naked statement. Who is the piece trying to convince? The already convinced and dyed-in-the-wool card carrying eco-enthusiasts or the unconvinced and the leery crowd?

justsubmit 7y ago
If I may turn a phrase: If this NYT article hasn't convinced you that climate change propaganda is real, and that the NYT is not a reputable source, probably nothing will.

mfer 7y ago

I would suggest using something other than hurricanes (at least those in the Atlantic basin) as evidence of global warming. The existing observations aren't good for the support of global warming at this point [1]. To help aide in convincing more skeptics I would suggest observations that have held up under scrutiny. [1] https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/ https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

corodra 7y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong. What happened in Alaska, that heat wave, was BEYOND normal. Not by a little, but by a lot. They crushed a whole bunch of heat records that week, right? Wouldn't that be the best poster child of global warming taking affect for at least 2019 (thus far)?
- avar 7y ago
  No. There's scientific consensus on aggregate warming and overall destabilization of weather patterns. So we can say that generally speaking we'll have a higher chance of beating previous temperature records going forward. That doesn't work the other way around when looking at single weather events.
  - corodra 7y ago
    Yes, yes, weather and climate are two different things. It's like the analogy between a dog and a person walking the dog. The dog (weather) might weave all around in different crazy directions, but the human (climate) is the path you should be looking at. The Alaska heatwave was a decent symptom of the general change in climate, no? At least in better respects than a hurricane.

lowii 7y ago

> If the summer heat, followed by Hurricane Dorian, hasn’t convinced you that climate change is real, probably nothing will. Saying that is as dumb as saying global warming isn't real because there's still snow in winter.

dyslexit 7y ago

That's not at all why global warming deniers exist. The reason they exist is because the fossil fuel industry managed to make believing in climate change a political issue rather than a scientific one, which is why the denial is embraced by one party but not the other. The actual "arguments" don't matter, this one especially since it's impossible to tell if Dorian would've even existed or not had the climate not changed.

corodra 7y ago
Okay, I do agree. But misinformation due to sloppy broad brush strokes does not help. At all. It fuels what you just said. It gives them "See, see! They're wrong about this! What do they know? They're just making stuff up for their agenda!" And to be honest, I have to agree with that statement. Because that first line of the article is simply a "the sky is falling because I say so" statement. And remember, I do agree that global warming is happening. But because I believe the science, I have to be fair on all factual statements. No matter if that fact helps or hurts me. I have to be fair. It would have been smarter to talk about Alaska heat wave from the get-go that lasted, what was it, 7 to 9 days? I don't remember. That's WAY harder to dance around. Everyone can go "It got hot in Alaska? Weird... it got 90+ degrees hot? WTF? For how long? Holy shit!" Instead of a statement that amounted to "There was a hurricane in the Atlantic. Global warming is real."
- dyslexit 7y ago
  You're right, and the comment from the article is definitely over the top. My only point is that sadly people would still be denying climate change no matter how perfectly presented the warnings are, and there's an obvious frustration, even anger, aimed at those responsible for this.
  - corodra 7y ago
    One thing that flat-earthers have taught me this past few years, you absolutely can't cure stupid. There will always be stupid ass people on the planet. However, I do know rational people who don't believe in global warming. Mostly, to the degree of being fearful. They do believe that climate patterns do change. They believe the Earth can get hot. They just don't think in 2050 Florida is going to wash out like some predictions said a few years ago. The reason, there's too many doomsayers that overblow claims or making mountains out of molehills. This article being one. This leads them to still stay on the fence or lean one way or the other. I'm generally a prudent individual. If I see potential problems ahead, I try to nip that problem in the bud. So even if I, hypothetically, didn't think we are on a crash course when it comes to global warming, I still think it would be good to make sure it never comes to that. Reversing the affects takes too long to let it happen. Best to curb CO2 production as soon as possible, just to be safe. But it's not handled like that at all. If I didn't have my own thoughts on the subject, I won't lie, I'd probably be a denier too. Too many global warming advocates have made some crazy claims with dates that never held up. They want to ban all these lifestyle activities that aren't even the low lying fruit. All in the name of "scaring people into action". That line of thought is archaic and dead. People don't function that way anymore. We need to try being rational about how we spread information. That way a majority of people who actually "change the world" and have "influence" agree and spread the word and ideas on making such change. First we stop making bullshit claims on global warming. Then we can get people to fully wrap their heads around the real research. Which, I know sounds like a lot. But, it worked in Florida elementary schools. I argue Florida public environmental education (at least in the 90s) was a super effective program. It never overblew anything or made sweeping claims over little things. I remember well that they always said "Bad things could happen if we don't do anything", not will. So yea, maybe I'm bias. But I just know articles like these aren't helping. And sadly, people who believe in global warming because of articles like these, are weak in faith. The first to give up and do nothing.

jfengel 7y ago

That statement seems accurate to me, but there's a lot wrapped up with it. What should have convinced people, decades ago, is the combination of well-attested theory and numerous lines of evidence. Anybody capable of being convinced -- which is to say, able to understand science and not ideologically blinded to it -- has needed no subsequent convincing. There are a lot of people who don't fit that category, and if they are to be persuaded at all, it won't be by the means that are used to convince the scientifically literate. For the illiterate, they might well be tipped by one summer's weather or one hurricane's damage. That's bad science, but the voting booth doesn't care whether your reasons are sound or not. The New York Times is reporting on policy as well as science: what people are going to choose to do. In that sense the statement is accurate. Those capable of being convinced by science are convinced; those who are moved by incorrect evidence have just received a big wad of it. The only ones who haven't reached the correct conclusion are driven by ideology, and won't be convinced by any evidence. We can bemoan the fact that so much of policy is decided on bad grounds, but that seems to be a fact of life. Most people don't understand science, and manufactured doubt can be used to sway them from the conclusions reached by science. If you care about getting things done in a democracy, you have to take them into account. That doesn't justify using the science badly, but that's not what's happening here. They're just reporting on the mechanisms by which people have reached their conclusions.

whatshisface 7y ago
>the combination of well-attested theory and numerous lines of evidence One time, I saw a graph of temperature over time. That's it. Nobody has ever tried to show me any other theory or evidence. Has anyone ever tried publicizing the science? I take issue with the "science has failed so now we have to be irrational" story because I am not convinced that the science has ever been tried.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- 7y ago

scragg 7y ago

I think the point of bringing up hurricane Dorian is the size/strength. It's not unique by itself but cat 4/5's are at an upward trend[1]. Also take a look at hurricane Barry[2] this year. It's a disturbance that came out of the continental US, became a hurricane in the gulf, and came back to strike the US. [1] https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/pix/user_images/tk/global_warm_hurr/Hurr_major_USland_count_w_Stats.png https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/pix/user_images... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Barry_(2019)#/media/File:Barry_2019_track.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Barry_(2019)#/media/...

corodra 7y ago
Big problem with that chart. Look where it ends. 2006. It looks like an upward trend. If you add the last decade it's missing, that trend won't exist. You know what, let put that together in BI really quick. I want to see if that trend holds true since it's missing the past decade of data.
- scragg 7y ago
  Here is a larger timescale. Headings link to charts. https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html
  - corodra 7y ago
    Taking a look at the data, it's not that damning. Our upward swing really started in 1995 and hasn't increased since. 2005 was an outlying year, and the rest really aren't that much of a big deal. No real upward swing since 95. I will say our hurricane floor count is higher on average by 2-3. I have a hard time believing there were zero hurricanes some years. Meteorology and aeronautics really was useless before the 60s (compared to today). So, numbers before then are hard to take seriously and are probably understated. Our 5 year average of storms is trending down (slightly) since 08 as well. 10 year average peaked in 05 and has dropped since 2012. My grand point, hurricanes right now don't make good evidence for global warming. There are far better evidence points and general scientific knowledge about greenhouse gases. Using hurricane statistics is only going to lead to ammo for deniers as they don't pay attention to better evidence. Will hurricanes potentially intensify in both volume and strength? It's definitely possible if ocean temperatures rise on average. That's how hurricanes are "fueled". But right now, we don't have good evidence of that being a truth.

rmilejczz 7y ago

This natgeo article seems to disagree with you, claiming that higher upper ocean temps allowed Dorian to maintain a greater intensity than it would have otherwise while stalled over the Bahamas. Higher temps also contributed to Dorians overall strength. You make many arguments about prevalence but I’m not seeing that mentioned by others as a link to global warming, only peak intensity which absolutely is rising and absolutely contributed to Dorians overall devastation. More info here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/09/how-warm-water-fuels-a-hurricane/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/09/how-w...

rmilejczz 7y ago
Why is this comment downvoted? I’ve only been on HN for a few weeks but I’m constantly get downvoted when trying to act in good faith and engage in discussions. What am I doing wrong? It’s becoming frustrating, since none of these downvoters bother to explain what led them to downvote my comment in the first place.
- justsubmit 7y ago
  It's downvoted because some random user with >=500 karma didn't like it and clicked the down arrow. That's all downvoting means here. There are no ethics for voting here. In effect, voting is simply a measure of whether random HN users were pleased or displeased by your comment. And you're not allowed to mention it, either. If your perfectly reasonable and polite comment gets downvoted to invisibility by random, angry users who won't tolerate diversity of opinion, then suck it up, comrade, and learn to please the hivemind--no complaining! Of course, certain very-high-karma users can get away with saying things that would be flagged and downvoted to death if said by anyone else. And that's what HN wants voting to be. Welcome to HN. Enjoy your stay, if you can.

jmcqk6 7y ago

>This is why global warming deniers exist, because people make these types of stupid comments. Oh, this is why they exist? Or is this just a convenient excuse? Either way 'some people don't make sense when describing X' is not a good reason to reject X.

corodra 7y ago
To be fair to anyone that denies something, if they don't directly observe it, why should they believe it? Especially if they have to alter their day to day lives around that statement? The media makes contradictory sweeping claims time and time again over small bits of data. Why should anyone believe "the science" they pose? With the media being the leaders of dialogue, why should people believe in something that alter's their day-to-day practice? I'm not even getting into the fossil-fuel fueled propaganda. Just a human nature perspective. Not being able to observe an action/event is meant to be suspect rather than held as doctrine. Again, I'm not saying global warming is a lie. I know it's real. Not a belief or held in faith. Just knowing. But part of the discourse as to why people don't believe it, I see from articles like the NYT article. It's just a realistic stance on the issue. Articles like these give zero benefit. Even those who believe in global warming are arguing against this article in HN. It definitely won't bring the deniers into the light.
- jmcqk6 7y ago
  If you're looking to the media to provide a unified narrative on anything, you're on a fools errand. Fundamentally, the ability to understand the world involved critical thinking. The types of things we see from global warming deniers tends to be a kind of faux critical thought. Find some nugget of information that supports your cause, cling to it, and definitely do not attempt to gain some sort of comprehensive understanding of the subject. This is understandable in one sense - the world is extremely complicated, and one cannot form a deep understanding of all the things they need to interact with. The problem is people compensate for this by bullshitting themselves into believing they have some sort of understanding of said complex topic without putting in any of the work required to actually understand it. I don't know what the real name for it, but talking about 'the media' has become sort of like a code smell to me. "The media" doesn't exist as a unified thing, and that's almost certainly a good thing. Instead of being a useful phrase, it becomes a wild card for assigning responsibility for whatever the source thinks is wrong with the world.

modernista 7y ago

Can you please reconcile this statement: Dorian was technically a normal hurricane. with the following [The Labor Day Hurricane] was tied with Hurricane Dorian for the strongest landfalling Atlantic hurricane by maximum sustained winds, with winds of 185 mph (295 km/h) at landfall Or if not, at lease please stop calling people "stupid" for bringing up Dorian as an indication that perhaps we should be concerned about increasing frequency of severe tropical storms?