3 ms·

You should not employ the same cynicism and skepticism towards random doomsayers as towards actual experts. I feel like this is such an obvious thing to say. A

You should not employ the same cynicism and skepticism towards random doomsayers as towards actual experts. I feel like this is such an obvious thing to say. And if you’re seeing “donate here!”, then you’re not listening to someone who is into the science of it. (You may be listening to a well meaning and trustworthy charity, though; but it could also be grifters) I’m pretty positive you’re retconning your past life. Because I remember the shit I was told 20 years ago and it’s on track: Summers of 40 degrees in France. Cold snaps in winter more frequent. Heat waves that are deadlier and more frequent. Swim gear in October. Stuff that wouldn’t have made sense back then. So, either you’re lying to yourself about your past life, or, you listened to the wrong people; in both paths you became a denier (sorry, skeptic). I listened to the right people, I ended up trusting the system. Sounds to me like, while this is overall a systemic problem, you carry some amount of personal, introspective responsibility.

claytongulick 4y ago
I remember in the cold north east having winter days that would be swimsuit weather when I was a kid. My parents called it Indian summers. I remember hurricanes, droughts, etc... From what I've read, our overall incidents of severe weather haven't significantly increased. I've seen some studies that claim a decrease. Fwiw, the average temperature in France hasn't changed much (if any) since 1959 [1]. The past few years have been a bit warmer, but there were some colder ones before that. Temps are pretty much flat for as long as the four operating weather stations have been measuring. > So, either you’re lying to yourself about your past life, or, you listened to the wrong people; in both paths you became a denier It's so strange to me the sort of personal attacks I get on HN. Just for offering a counterpoint perspective. Does it make you feel validated or something? I hope it does, and that by being your target I could make you feel better. [1] https://www.worlddata.info/europe/france/climate.php https://www.worlddata.info/europe/france/climate.php
- scrollaway 4y ago
  Via your link: > The average annual temperature was about 12.1 °C in the years after 1956 and about 14.2 °C in the last years before 2021. So in less than 66 years it has increased by about 2.1 °C. This trend only applies to the selected 4 weather stations in France. A considerably more comprehensive evaluation of the global warming has been provided separately <https://www.worlddata.info/global-warming.php https://www.worlddata.info/global-warming.php> If you're seeing this as "flat", then you need to learn how to read it. Just because the graph doesn't look impressive doesn't mean the data isn't significant. Averages in temperature are also often difficult to understand in the context of climate change, because when the averages are more extreme on both ends, then this can shift the annual average. (If I have ten days of 0 degrees, the average temperature is 0 degrees. If I have five days at -10 and five days at +10, the average is unchanged.) To put it simply, colder days more cold, hotter days more hot, average doesn't change a lot. > It's so strange to me the sort of personal attacks I get on HN. A lot of people arguing your point are either trolls or willfully blind, or worse. You are not in good company; this is coming from somebody who tends to assume good faith, as much as is reasonably possible. And being willfully blind is very easy when the data is complex and it takes explicit effort to understand it. Maybe this graph is easier for you to grok: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
  - claytongulick 4y ago
    Yeah, take out the last few years and look at it. Pretty flat. Not much of a trend line, and the slope could differ depending on your slice. Also, keep in mind that some of the hottest and worse years we've had in recent history in the US were early to mid 1900s (not sure about France). Starting the graph at 1959 is also a misleading slice. But I assume good intent, and assume that these are things you know or could discover for yourself. I've burnt enough karma on this (which is weird that I care about), and honestly have just become a bit exhausted by the partisan comments and downvoting on here. I just keep getting called mean things, and it's hand waved away by comments like yours, like, because I tend to look at things from a lot of angles and don't accept any particular "winner" or "accepted truth", I'm in "bad company", whatever that means, so it's ok to call me things and be mean. It's ok, it's not just you. It's really common on HN recently. It's time I took a break anyway, so thanks for giving me the little push I needed.
    - LorenPechtel 4y ago
      The brain isn't good at finding the average of a graph like that. However, there is one thing you can eyeball: Look at the peaks, compare them to the 20C line. The peaks are clearly higher as time goes on.
mike_hearn 4y ago
It's very hard to accurately remember what people were saying twenty years ago. One way to resolve such disputes is with newspaper archives. The problem is that for every prediction you recall as being correct, skeptics can answer back with one like this one from the year 2000: https://web.archive.org/web/20091230061832/http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html https://web.archive.org/web/20091230061832/http://www.indepe... Headline: "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past" According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said. David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold. It's now 20 years later and it was snowing in the UK just last weekend, yet the credentials of these "actual experts" are impeccable. Climatology is in an especially vulnerable spot right now due to its heavy reliance on academic modelling, which post-COVID a lot of people associate with unreliable predictions + official denial of prediction failure. To tackle growing skepticism climatologists could try several strategies, one of which is to go through the list of prior failed predictions that skeptics like to raise and explain for each one what methodology changes were made in response.
- scrollaway 4y ago
  https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/snow-cover-3/assessment https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/snow-cove... "It snowed yesterday in London!" is as good a rebuttal as that waterbrained senator who came to congress bringing a snowball arguing climate change isn't real. To your quote: > within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event" This is absolutely true where I live, which is slightly south of the UK. I'll also note your quote has no cited date beyond "a few years". So, not a great example.
  - mike_hearn 4y ago
    Their prediction was either wrong ("children just aren't going to know what snow is") or if you insist ignoring that part of the prediction, so vague as to be unfalsifiable. It's therefore a good example of the problems that have caused skepticism to grow, and what can be done about it.

claytongulick 4y ago

I remember in the cold north east having winter days that would be swimsuit weather when I was a kid. My parents called it Indian summers. I remember hurricanes, droughts, etc... From what I've read, our overall incidents of severe weather haven't significantly increased. I've seen some studies that claim a decrease. Fwiw, the average temperature in France hasn't changed much (if any) since 1959 [1]. The past few years have been a bit warmer, but there were some colder ones before that. Temps are pretty much flat for as long as the four operating weather stations have been measuring. > So, either you’re lying to yourself about your past life, or, you listened to the wrong people; in both paths you became a denier It's so strange to me the sort of personal attacks I get on HN. Just for offering a counterpoint perspective. Does it make you feel validated or something? I hope it does, and that by being your target I could make you feel better. [1] https://www.worlddata.info/europe/france/climate.php https://www.worlddata.info/europe/france/climate.php

scrollaway 4y ago
Via your link: > The average annual temperature was about 12.1 °C in the years after 1956 and about 14.2 °C in the last years before 2021. So in less than 66 years it has increased by about 2.1 °C. This trend only applies to the selected 4 weather stations in France. A considerably more comprehensive evaluation of the global warming has been provided separately <https://www.worlddata.info/global-warming.php https://www.worlddata.info/global-warming.php> If you're seeing this as "flat", then you need to learn how to read it. Just because the graph doesn't look impressive doesn't mean the data isn't significant. Averages in temperature are also often difficult to understand in the context of climate change, because when the averages are more extreme on both ends, then this can shift the annual average. (If I have ten days of 0 degrees, the average temperature is 0 degrees. If I have five days at -10 and five days at +10, the average is unchanged.) To put it simply, colder days more cold, hotter days more hot, average doesn't change a lot. > It's so strange to me the sort of personal attacks I get on HN. A lot of people arguing your point are either trolls or willfully blind, or worse. You are not in good company; this is coming from somebody who tends to assume good faith, as much as is reasonably possible. And being willfully blind is very easy when the data is complex and it takes explicit effort to understand it. Maybe this graph is easier for you to grok: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
- claytongulick 4y ago
  Yeah, take out the last few years and look at it. Pretty flat. Not much of a trend line, and the slope could differ depending on your slice. Also, keep in mind that some of the hottest and worse years we've had in recent history in the US were early to mid 1900s (not sure about France). Starting the graph at 1959 is also a misleading slice. But I assume good intent, and assume that these are things you know or could discover for yourself. I've burnt enough karma on this (which is weird that I care about), and honestly have just become a bit exhausted by the partisan comments and downvoting on here. I just keep getting called mean things, and it's hand waved away by comments like yours, like, because I tend to look at things from a lot of angles and don't accept any particular "winner" or "accepted truth", I'm in "bad company", whatever that means, so it's ok to call me things and be mean. It's ok, it's not just you. It's really common on HN recently. It's time I took a break anyway, so thanks for giving me the little push I needed.
  - LorenPechtel 4y ago
    The brain isn't good at finding the average of a graph like that. However, there is one thing you can eyeball: Look at the peaks, compare them to the 20C line. The peaks are clearly higher as time goes on.

mike_hearn 4y ago

It's very hard to accurately remember what people were saying twenty years ago. One way to resolve such disputes is with newspaper archives. The problem is that for every prediction you recall as being correct, skeptics can answer back with one like this one from the year 2000: https://web.archive.org/web/20091230061832/http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html https://web.archive.org/web/20091230061832/http://www.indepe... Headline: "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past" According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said. David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold. It's now 20 years later and it was snowing in the UK just last weekend, yet the credentials of these "actual experts" are impeccable. Climatology is in an especially vulnerable spot right now due to its heavy reliance on academic modelling, which post-COVID a lot of people associate with unreliable predictions + official denial of prediction failure. To tackle growing skepticism climatologists could try several strategies, one of which is to go through the list of prior failed predictions that skeptics like to raise and explain for each one what methodology changes were made in response.

scrollaway 4y ago
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/snow-cover-3/assessment https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/snow-cove... "It snowed yesterday in London!" is as good a rebuttal as that waterbrained senator who came to congress bringing a snowball arguing climate change isn't real. To your quote: > within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event" This is absolutely true where I live, which is slightly south of the UK. I'll also note your quote has no cited date beyond "a few years". So, not a great example.
- mike_hearn 4y ago
  Their prediction was either wrong ("children just aren't going to know what snow is") or if you insist ignoring that part of the prediction, so vague as to be unfalsifiable. It's therefore a good example of the problems that have caused skepticism to grow, and what can be done about it.