5 ms·
It's not about how many events, but how many years. We can say that climate change would be expected to cause these weather events, but weather isn't climate un
by smt88 5y ago
It's not about how many events, but how many years. We can say that climate change would be expected to cause these weather events, but weather isn't climate until it's observed for much longer than we have so far.
There's no doubt climate change can and will produce these effects, so the best articles will just say that A) these events are extreme, and B) we will see many more of them until they become the new normal.
- anigbrowl 5y agoWhile caution is laudable, it's also frequently an excuse for inaction (not by you). As a person of middle years who has regarded CC as An Issue for ~25 years now, I'd say the new normal has arrived.
- bena 5y agoYeah, environmental concerns, including climate change is part of what inspired Al Gore to run for Congress in 1976. So, is like 45 years enough? And that's the thing about incremental change, it creeps up on you. So yeah, last year wasn't that much different from last year, but compared to 5 years ago, 10, 50? There's always an excuse to do nothing.
- smt88 5y agoI understand your point, but I don't consider it to be "caution" so much as "accurate". Scientists (and journalists) should tell the truth about science, even if they think it will negatively impact behavior. Otherwise they'll lose credibility later (see: CDC and "don't wear masks" ca. March 2020).
- anigbrowl 5y agoThey already do, and go to great lengths to qualify and quantify their uncertainty. But you seem to be arguing that onl retrospective knowledge is valid. If there's a large fire going on on in a room of your own, you can't say with total certainty that the rest of the structure will catch fire. But if you insist on delaying judgment because it's not yet accurate to say your house/apartment building is on fire, how is that going to work out for you?