3 ms·
The rest of the article ignores that statement. > To make an argument that climate change isn't a factor, I'd imagine one would need to look at the expected fr
by ceilingcorner 5y ago
The rest of the article ignores that statement.
> To make an argument that climate change isn't a factor, I'd imagine one would need to look at the expected frequency of getting record breaking floods, fires and other extreme events worldwide simultaneously.
You have it backwards. To prove that climate change is a factor, you need to do these things. Storms causing floods that kill people precede industrialization.
- lhorie 5y agoNo, to say that climate change is a factor, you just need a non-zero correlation between climate change and any of these events (i.e. even if it only causes a 0.1% increase in weather variability and that contributes to an increase of only 5M galons of water in a flood, it is still a factor). And peer reviewed studies are plenty and they do support the idea that a strong correlation does exist across many types of extreme weather events. If you want to argue that carbon offsets don't have as much direct impact on specific problems (floods, fires, whatever), sure, that's a valid question about resource prioritization, but the theme I keep hearing is that these things keep getting worse year after year and that in a lot of cases it's no longer at a scale small enough for infrastructure projects to even be feasible anymore.