53 ms·

It's non-sensical to use climate change as an explanation when it comes to cost for reasons I have already pointed out. There are multiple obvious reasons for

It's non-sensical to use climate change as an explanation when it comes to cost for reasons I have already pointed out. There are multiple obvious reasons for why the cost is going up since the is more to get destroyed before we even get to "climate change". But there is not a single piece of evidence anywhere that it has anything to do with "climate change" which itself is a completely meaningless and sloppy expression that really lumps all sorts of things together that should be separated. I am willing to bet that you can't actually find a single concrete piece of evidence that the rising cost have anything to do with climate change. And using your logic, Holland shouldn't exist at all. We are becoming better and better at living places that used to be inhabitable for humans. That has a cost because it's more exposed, but over time this will be countered by improved mitigation processes. I would love to see any concrete demonstrated evidence that climate is an issue here. There is a reason why they call it weather and climate disasters. Highly manipulative.

Retric 7y ago
If you want any evidence: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1452 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1452 “Here, we review the evidence and argue that for some types of extreme — notably heatwaves, but also precipitation extremes — there is now strong evidence linking specific events or an increase in their numbers to the human influence on climate. For other types of extreme, such as storms, the available evidence is less conclusive, but based on observed trends and basic physical concepts it is nevertheless plausible to expect an increase.” As to climate change, the term is specifically used because it’s far from a uniform change in temperature. The poles warm far more than the equator with massive amounts of heat shifting between them. In some instances this can result in events where winter cold fronts stretching much further south on the same day warm fronts extend into the far north. The global temperature may be above average on the same day you get snow flurries in Texas.
- ThomPete 7y ago
  Its used because its unspecific, you can lump any notion whether speculated or demonstrated under that category and just claim whatever you want. Your example is as vague as they come which proves my point. No specifics and everything gets lumped under one to conclude what they want to. Thats not science thats scientism.

Retric 7y ago

If you want any evidence: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1452 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1452 “Here, we review the evidence and argue that for some types of extreme — notably heatwaves, but also precipitation extremes — there is now strong evidence linking specific events or an increase in their numbers to the human influence on climate. For other types of extreme, such as storms, the available evidence is less conclusive, but based on observed trends and basic physical concepts it is nevertheless plausible to expect an increase.” As to climate change, the term is specifically used because it’s far from a uniform change in temperature. The poles warm far more than the equator with massive amounts of heat shifting between them. In some instances this can result in events where winter cold fronts stretching much further south on the same day warm fronts extend into the far north. The global temperature may be above average on the same day you get snow flurries in Texas.

ThomPete 7y ago
Its used because its unspecific, you can lump any notion whether speculated or demonstrated under that category and just claim whatever you want. Your example is as vague as they come which proves my point. No specifics and everything gets lumped under one to conclude what they want to. Thats not science thats scientism.