3 ms·

> The climate is changing, there is no doubt. In many places around the world the signal of these changes has been observed in the occurrence of heat waves. But

> The climate is changing, there is no doubt. In many places around the world the signal of these changes has been observed in the occurrence of heat waves. But the United States is not among those places - not yet. I find this paragraph problematic. It seems to me he's taking an America centric viewpoint and saying because of the 1930s heatwave we can't use climate change as the explanation for the latest heating, but then also claiming that climate change is definitely happening, without critically looking at the same past climate anomalies in all those unnamed areas. Why is it the United States that is exceptional? I think if we looked at each area on the globe with the same lense we'd find that there is no evidence of localized climate change (which seems the wrong way to look at things anyways) in any area of that planet, and that would lead to the wrong global conclusion.

svnt 3y ago
He seems to be going to lengths to construct apologetics for both sides. It makes for odd reading but maybe him having some success is a sign that the gap between US perspectives is closing?
pdpi 3y ago
The problem is he's trying to make a fairly subtle point about a topic that tends to cause kneejerk reactions. Climate change is happening, he's not contesting that. This particular event might seem like it's related to climate change, but it's probably not (in his view. I have no idea whether that's true or not). This distinction is crucially important, for a few reasons. First off, it's a matter of intelectual honesty and integrity. If you want to use science as an argument when it suits you, you have to accept it when it doesn't. Second, it's bad rhetorics. If you argue today that climate change is causing this event, and somebody comes and says next week that you're wrong, that weakens your overall position. You become the proverbial boy who cried wolf, in an arena where accusations of crying wolf are already rampant, and where feeding those accusations is the last thing you want to do. Third, it recontextualises the problem. If this is a naturally-occurring extreme weather event rather than the result of anthropogenic climate change, then we need to talk about how those two effects compound with each other. Or, as the article says, "If electrical grids fail and people die this week, that will mean that we are not even prepared for the present".
- SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
  All good points. The problem ends up being that there is no way we can point at any event or series of events as definitive proof of climate change because somewhere in history/prehistory there will be equivalents. People who need visible proof to understand the problem will never see it.

svnt 3y ago

He seems to be going to lengths to construct apologetics for both sides. It makes for odd reading but maybe him having some success is a sign that the gap between US perspectives is closing?

pdpi 3y ago

The problem is he's trying to make a fairly subtle point about a topic that tends to cause kneejerk reactions. Climate change is happening, he's not contesting that. This particular event might seem like it's related to climate change, but it's probably not (in his view. I have no idea whether that's true or not). This distinction is crucially important, for a few reasons. First off, it's a matter of intelectual honesty and integrity. If you want to use science as an argument when it suits you, you have to accept it when it doesn't. Second, it's bad rhetorics. If you argue today that climate change is causing this event, and somebody comes and says next week that you're wrong, that weakens your overall position. You become the proverbial boy who cried wolf, in an arena where accusations of crying wolf are already rampant, and where feeding those accusations is the last thing you want to do. Third, it recontextualises the problem. If this is a naturally-occurring extreme weather event rather than the result of anthropogenic climate change, then we need to talk about how those two effects compound with each other. Or, as the article says, "If electrical grids fail and people die this week, that will mean that we are not even prepared for the present".

SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
All good points. The problem ends up being that there is no way we can point at any event or series of events as definitive proof of climate change because somewhere in history/prehistory there will be equivalents. People who need visible proof to understand the problem will never see it.