4 ms·

Your point being?

short_sells_poo 4y ago
It may well be counterproductive to normalize drawing conclusions from singular events. We don't know whether this particular drought is due to the human induced climate change. It's great if it will finally convince those who are in denial about climate change, but in some sense they are being convinced by what is likely to be a random event. In other words: the fundamental issue is that there's a very large mass of people who are resistant to rational argument. So the climate change proponents get "lucky" this time as they get a single but painful event in their life and they can go to deniers and say "do you see now how bad climate change is?" but this is a single event. For all we know, there may have been many similar ones 500 (or 1000) years ago before detailed meteorological records were kept. What if this drought is followed by 5 subsequent years of completely normal weather? Would we want the deniers to start claiming everything is fine based on a handful of events?
- kergonath 4y ago
  > It may well be counterproductive to normalize drawing conclusions from singular events. We are not doing that. But we have a lot of statistical data and measurements, which demonstrate a noticeable increases of both frequency and magnitude of these events. > We don't know whether this particular drought is due to the human induced climate change. This is the kind of arguments some people use when they want to muddy the waters. Because, sure, someone is going to say that it is caused by global warming and then someone else will say “gotcha, climate is statistics and an event cannot be attributed to a single cause”. So let’s not go that way again. This event is unprecedented in recorded history in Western Europe. Whilst indeed no single event can be attributed to a single cause, again, we do have data showing that the trend follows exactly what was predicted by the models 30 to 20 years ago. This behaviour is completely inconsistent with the situation of our planet, which should otherwise be in a mild cooling cycle. > So the climate change proponents get "lucky" this time as they get a single but painful event in their life and they can go to deniers and say "do you see now how bad climate change is?" Nobody is lucky, certainly not the dead or those whose house went up in flames, or those boiling at home. This attitude is juvenile and unmoored from what actually happens in the real world. > For all we know, there may have been many similar ones 500 (or 1000) years ago before detailed meteorological records were kept. I don’t know why you lament people being generally irrational and then come back to this sort of arguments. Let me repeat: single freak events are not caused by a single cause, but we do have data, including concerning the last million of years. The things we see now, with rapid sea level rise, collapse of ecosystems, mass extinction, and regional cataclysms, are things we can see in the fossil record. > What if this drought is followed by 5 subsequent years of completely normal weather? Would we want the deniers to start claiming everything is fine based on a handful of events? Except that it is not the case. We keep accumulating heat records, and what used to be centennial droughts are not every 2 years. People already said that in 2003, and yet it keeps getting worse. Overall, I am not sure why I spent so much time replying. You do not sound half as smart as you seem to think you are. I would encourage you to understand the subject a tiny bit before LARPing the intelligent adult in the room.
  - ifyoubuildit 4y ago
    You may be correct about everything you've said here, but I expect the tone is counterproductive. If you're intent is to blow off some steam for your own sake, feel free to disregard. If you're intent is to make a difference, it seems likely that this kind of discourse moves the needle in the opposite direction you would presumably like for it to go. > I would encourage you to understand the subject a tiny bit before LARPing the intelligent adult in the room. I would encourage you to consider the impact of words like this before posting them. What was gained here? And what was lost? Edit: It's like in a game of billiards. The people who win games are the ones that are precise. Each turn results in many of the balls being in a more beneficial position. Less skilled players slam the balls in the general direction of a pocket, and something might go in occasionally, but the overall table state is a mess turn to turn.
    - kergonath 4y ago
      > You may be correct about everything you've said here, but I expect the tone is counterproductive. I think you’re right. I realised after 5 minutes that it was the same tired tropes and mistakes again and the OP really sounded like bad faith by the end, and that no discussion is going to be productive anyway. Let’s be fair: all these points are very well documented for anyone interested in understanding them. > I would encourage you to consider the impact of words like this before posting them. What was gained here? And what was lost? You’re right again, but this bit was cathartic. It is difficult to stand the people who act like they are the reasonable ones when they use dodgy logic and faulty premises.
    - ifyoubuildit 4y ago
      I was surprised by the downvotes I got for this, so I wanted to clarify my point. If you have a cause that you are interested in, making a public statement about it will either help or hurt that cause, depending on how that statement is received by your audience. Some people don't realize this, but being correct (or passionately believing you are correct) has little bearing on how your argument is perceived. You can be right, but if your delivery is abrasive, the world (assuming your cause is just) would have been better off if you just kept your mouth shut. Statements like the one I originally replied to are (imo) examples of people being harmful to their own cause. Insulting, shaming, browbeating, etc, will rarely gain you any ground, and will likely actually galvanize people against you and your cause.
dopamean 4y ago
I'm not saying I agree with this but I think the point might be that what's happening now isn't completely out of the ordinary but we're being made to believe that it is.
- dev-3892 4y ago
  the problem is that this is going to be one of the coldest summers in the next 20 years
  - dopamean 4y ago
    I'm with you a 100% on this. I was just providing what I thought was an explanation of the other person's point.
actually_a_dog 4y ago
There are bodies hitting the ground, and, still, nobody cares: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32398122 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32398122

Your point being?

It may well be counterproductive to normalize drawing conclusions from singular events. We don't know whether this particular drought is due to the human induced climate change. It's great if it will finally convince those who are in denial about climate change, but in some sense they are being convinced by what is likely to be a random event. In other words: the fundamental issue is that there's a very large mass of people who are resistant to rational argument. So the climate change proponents get "lucky" this time as they get a single but painful event in their life and they can go to deniers and say "do you see now how bad climate change is?" but this is a single event. For all we know, there may have been many similar ones 500 (or 1000) years ago before detailed meteorological records were kept. What if this drought is followed by 5 subsequent years of completely normal weather? Would we want the deniers to start claiming everything is fine based on a handful of events?

kergonath 4y ago
> It may well be counterproductive to normalize drawing conclusions from singular events. We are not doing that. But we have a lot of statistical data and measurements, which demonstrate a noticeable increases of both frequency and magnitude of these events. > We don't know whether this particular drought is due to the human induced climate change. This is the kind of arguments some people use when they want to muddy the waters. Because, sure, someone is going to say that it is caused by global warming and then someone else will say “gotcha, climate is statistics and an event cannot be attributed to a single cause”. So let’s not go that way again. This event is unprecedented in recorded history in Western Europe. Whilst indeed no single event can be attributed to a single cause, again, we do have data showing that the trend follows exactly what was predicted by the models 30 to 20 years ago. This behaviour is completely inconsistent with the situation of our planet, which should otherwise be in a mild cooling cycle. > So the climate change proponents get "lucky" this time as they get a single but painful event in their life and they can go to deniers and say "do you see now how bad climate change is?" Nobody is lucky, certainly not the dead or those whose house went up in flames, or those boiling at home. This attitude is juvenile and unmoored from what actually happens in the real world. > For all we know, there may have been many similar ones 500 (or 1000) years ago before detailed meteorological records were kept. I don’t know why you lament people being generally irrational and then come back to this sort of arguments. Let me repeat: single freak events are not caused by a single cause, but we do have data, including concerning the last million of years. The things we see now, with rapid sea level rise, collapse of ecosystems, mass extinction, and regional cataclysms, are things we can see in the fossil record. > What if this drought is followed by 5 subsequent years of completely normal weather? Would we want the deniers to start claiming everything is fine based on a handful of events? Except that it is not the case. We keep accumulating heat records, and what used to be centennial droughts are not every 2 years. People already said that in 2003, and yet it keeps getting worse. Overall, I am not sure why I spent so much time replying. You do not sound half as smart as you seem to think you are. I would encourage you to understand the subject a tiny bit before LARPing the intelligent adult in the room.
- ifyoubuildit 4y ago
  You may be correct about everything you've said here, but I expect the tone is counterproductive. If you're intent is to blow off some steam for your own sake, feel free to disregard. If you're intent is to make a difference, it seems likely that this kind of discourse moves the needle in the opposite direction you would presumably like for it to go. > I would encourage you to understand the subject a tiny bit before LARPing the intelligent adult in the room. I would encourage you to consider the impact of words like this before posting them. What was gained here? And what was lost? Edit: It's like in a game of billiards. The people who win games are the ones that are precise. Each turn results in many of the balls being in a more beneficial position. Less skilled players slam the balls in the general direction of a pocket, and something might go in occasionally, but the overall table state is a mess turn to turn.
  - kergonath 4y ago
    > You may be correct about everything you've said here, but I expect the tone is counterproductive. I think you’re right. I realised after 5 minutes that it was the same tired tropes and mistakes again and the OP really sounded like bad faith by the end, and that no discussion is going to be productive anyway. Let’s be fair: all these points are very well documented for anyone interested in understanding them. > I would encourage you to consider the impact of words like this before posting them. What was gained here? And what was lost? You’re right again, but this bit was cathartic. It is difficult to stand the people who act like they are the reasonable ones when they use dodgy logic and faulty premises.
  - ifyoubuildit 4y ago
    I was surprised by the downvotes I got for this, so I wanted to clarify my point. If you have a cause that you are interested in, making a public statement about it will either help or hurt that cause, depending on how that statement is received by your audience. Some people don't realize this, but being correct (or passionately believing you are correct) has little bearing on how your argument is perceived. You can be right, but if your delivery is abrasive, the world (assuming your cause is just) would have been better off if you just kept your mouth shut. Statements like the one I originally replied to are (imo) examples of people being harmful to their own cause. Insulting, shaming, browbeating, etc, will rarely gain you any ground, and will likely actually galvanize people against you and your cause.

dopamean 4y ago

I'm not saying I agree with this but I think the point might be that what's happening now isn't completely out of the ordinary but we're being made to believe that it is.

dev-3892 4y ago
the problem is that this is going to be one of the coldest summers in the next 20 years
- dopamean 4y ago
  I'm with you a 100% on this. I was just providing what I thought was an explanation of the other person's point.

actually_a_dog 4y ago

There are bodies hitting the ground, and, still, nobody cares: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32398122 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32398122