3 ms·

A bunch of them do. Heat waves, river floods, etc... For the heat wave chart, the stated reason for this is that it's the date where most urban areas started k

A bunch of them do. Heat waves, river floods, etc... For the heat wave chart, the stated reason for this is that it's the date where most urban areas started keeping careful records. They also, as a footnote[1] include an image going back much farther [2] which completely changes the picture and analysis. However the text description is all about the increase since 1960, only barely mentioning that it was much worse in the 1930s. How is it possible to look at this and not question it? Making false statements? Slowing down and reminding myself? I've spent countless hours looking at original noaa data related to climate change. I've seen a very clear distortion of data in reporting. > Double check what you are seeing. Look for things that don't confirm what you already believe. That's great advice, maybe we should both take it? [3] [4] I don't need to go through every single measure here, it's pretty easy to discover for yourself if you take a real look at the data. The severity and frequency of things like droughts, severe weather, heat waves are flat, if not in decline when you look across a broader window. Sea level rise is pretty linear for as long as it's been measured [5] NOAA data is pretty clear on this. Arctic sea ice? It has a well known oscillation that generally runs close to 180 degrees out of phase with antarctic sea ice. Again, super easy to learn about if you dig in. Did you know that Arctic sea ice actually increased from 1979 to 2015? [6] Also, measuring sea ice is notoriously difficult and error prone, and satellite data doesn't do a very good job of it. Also easy to learn about. My overall point, which for some strange reason gathers a ton of open hostility, is that we're much better off focusing on concrete ecological issues that can be solved today (not draining aquifers, better agriculture practices, elimination of weird farm bill subsidies to harmful crops, etc...). It's amazing how just pointing that out garners the sort of personal attacks that you leveled at me. Slowing down sounds like good advice! [1] https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-heat-waves#%20 https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica... [2] https://www.epa.gov/system/files/styles/small/private/images/2022-07/heat-waves_thumb3_2022.png?itok=Dcf-VBqX https://www.epa.gov/system/files/styles/small/private/images... [3] https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-drought https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica... [4] https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-tropical-cyclone-activity https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica... [5] https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica... [6] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2095927321005090 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S20959...

xpe 4y ago
Will you acknowledge your error? I'll point it out again. This: > It's pretty strange how all of those metrics start at 1960, no? Is quite different from this: > A bunch of them do. Heat waves, river floods, etc... You can't have it both ways. > Making false statements? Yes. I've demonstrated clearly that you wrote a false statement by saying "all". Then you shifted your position to say "a bunch of them". Why not acknowledge your mistake? > Slowing down and reminding myself? Yes. When was the last time you actually said to yourself, e.g. "I have a tendency to get annoyed by how reporters cover climate change. I should not let my annoyance spill over into other trains of thought, such as the claim 'climate change models are alarmist'". Adjust as needed to suit your situation and thought patterns. If you try it, I think you'll find benefit.
- claytongulick 4y ago
  Because pedantry is boring?
  - xpe 4y ago
    > Because pedantry is boring? This kind of deflection does not reflect well on you. On the other hand, you could accept and acknowledge that you spoke/wrote incorrectly.
xpe 4y ago
> It's amazing how just pointing that out garners the sort of personal attacks that you leveled at me. Slowing down sounds like good advice! Please show me the personal attack. Here is what I wrote: > No, "all of those metrics" on the many pages linked from the EPA page do not start at 1960. / Stop making false statements. Doing so hurts your credibility and wastes our time. / Try slowing down and reminding yourself of your preconceived biases. Double check what you are seeing. Look for things that don't confirm what you already believe. I said you made a false statement. You did. I did not call you names; e.g. I did not call you a liar. Claiming there is a personal attack when there is none is not acceptable. I can criticize your ideas -- that is fair game. It is understandable to feel hurt when ideas you hold are criticized. You may consider these ideas to be part of your identity. But these are not personal attacks. I respect that you have researched the climate change data. I likely would agree with some of your conclusions.

xpe 4y ago

Will you acknowledge your error? I'll point it out again. This: > It's pretty strange how all of those metrics start at 1960, no? Is quite different from this: > A bunch of them do. Heat waves, river floods, etc... You can't have it both ways. > Making false statements? Yes. I've demonstrated clearly that you wrote a false statement by saying "all". Then you shifted your position to say "a bunch of them". Why not acknowledge your mistake? > Slowing down and reminding myself? Yes. When was the last time you actually said to yourself, e.g. "I have a tendency to get annoyed by how reporters cover climate change. I should not let my annoyance spill over into other trains of thought, such as the claim 'climate change models are alarmist'". Adjust as needed to suit your situation and thought patterns. If you try it, I think you'll find benefit.

claytongulick 4y ago
Because pedantry is boring?
- xpe 4y ago
  > Because pedantry is boring? This kind of deflection does not reflect well on you. On the other hand, you could accept and acknowledge that you spoke/wrote incorrectly.

xpe 4y ago

> It's amazing how just pointing that out garners the sort of personal attacks that you leveled at me. Slowing down sounds like good advice! Please show me the personal attack. Here is what I wrote: > No, "all of those metrics" on the many pages linked from the EPA page do not start at 1960. / Stop making false statements. Doing so hurts your credibility and wastes our time. / Try slowing down and reminding yourself of your preconceived biases. Double check what you are seeing. Look for things that don't confirm what you already believe. I said you made a false statement. You did. I did not call you names; e.g. I did not call you a liar. Claiming there is a personal attack when there is none is not acceptable. I can criticize your ideas -- that is fair game. It is understandable to feel hurt when ideas you hold are criticized. You may consider these ideas to be part of your identity. But these are not personal attacks. I respect that you have researched the climate change data. I likely would agree with some of your conclusions.