5 ms·

These are the actual results of climate change though. What's being sensationalized here?

by spicybright 3y ago

Alupis 3y ago
[flagged]
- lxgr 3y ago
  Both of these things can be true at the same time: Climate change can increase the likelihood of events like this (warmer sea water roughly translates to more energy available for tropical storms, if I understand it right), but for any individual storm, it's impossible to say whether it would have happened anyway without climate change, and it can make sense to be prepared. Climate change is real, but climate change awareness alone is not a reasonable protection strategy for a city by the sea.
  - Alupis 3y ago
    It's a fair point you raise - my issue is the immediate blame of damn near everything on climate change. If everything is climate change, then nothing is climate change... it's tired and overused. There's no way the government of NYC conducted a study and learned this particular storm was caused by climate change in real time while it's still happening. Yet... here's the blame parade already. Climate change activists need to understand this pseudo-religious fever harms their position.
    - philipov 3y ago
      Your hyperbole comes across as quite feverish as well, you know. Are you sure you don't belong to a rival pseudo-religion?
    - grvdrm 3y ago
      Whether it’s climate change or not misses the point. People only pay attention when they can draw a bright line to a cause. Climate change is that cause. But the climate and impacts of all kinds related to it (all very complicated) have been studied and socialized for quite some time. So - I’m not sure the approach is wrong. Frankly, I don’t know what’s right. If you think their position hurts them, what do you suggest they or we do instead? Honest question.
- maximinus_thrax 3y ago
  > This climate change thing has not only become an excuse for government incompetence (fires, infrastructure failure, etc) They can both be true at the same time, and it pains me to be reading this type of stuff on hacker news. This climate change 'thing' was predicted and talked about for decades while deniers said it was bullshit. When the effects are visible, it's actually just 'government incompetence'. When the government tries to shape up and propose a plan to deal with it, the plan is struck down as being 'neo-marxist' or 'radical left' because again, climate change is 'bullshit'. I swear, it seems like we live in a more ridiculous reality than 'Don't look up'.
  - Alupis 3y ago
    *Bad plans are struck down, because they're bad. The "do something, anything" crowd got to run the show for a bit and the results were nothing like promised. Things like plastic straw bans that accomplish nothing, or ideas like banning airplanes entirely. These are radical extremist ideological views driven by fear and emotion - just like religion. Climate change activists shoot their own foot off with every opportunity. Propose sane, gradual changes without all the "world ending in 5 years" rhetoric and you will accomplish a lot more. It's a religion today. And just like other religions, it has it's own purity and ideology tests.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      Ah, it's Sir Humphrey Appleby. >Propose sane, gradual changes without all the "world ending in 5 years" rhetoric We did, 50 years ago say "whoa, lets slow down this climate change thing" And guess what. We didn't. And by the time you wake up, the only thing you're going to have to say is "Well, it's too late to do anything now".
      - Alupis 3y ago
        > And by the time you wake up, the only thing you're going to have to say is "Well, it's too late to do anything now". You just did it again - that's the sensationalism that is not helpful. The world is not ending tomorrow or anytime soon. People need to cool it with that rhetoric because you lose everyone that's not already signed up for Sunday school.
WanderPanda 3y ago
How do you come to this definite conclusion? Would this have been something like a two to three sigma event given no climate change? I highly doubt it

These are the actual results of climate change though. What's being sensationalized here?

Alupis 3y ago

[flagged]

lxgr 3y ago
Both of these things can be true at the same time: Climate change can increase the likelihood of events like this (warmer sea water roughly translates to more energy available for tropical storms, if I understand it right), but for any individual storm, it's impossible to say whether it would have happened anyway without climate change, and it can make sense to be prepared. Climate change is real, but climate change awareness alone is not a reasonable protection strategy for a city by the sea.
- Alupis 3y ago
  It's a fair point you raise - my issue is the immediate blame of damn near everything on climate change. If everything is climate change, then nothing is climate change... it's tired and overused. There's no way the government of NYC conducted a study and learned this particular storm was caused by climate change in real time while it's still happening. Yet... here's the blame parade already. Climate change activists need to understand this pseudo-religious fever harms their position.
  - philipov 3y ago
    Your hyperbole comes across as quite feverish as well, you know. Are you sure you don't belong to a rival pseudo-religion?
  - grvdrm 3y ago
    Whether it’s climate change or not misses the point. People only pay attention when they can draw a bright line to a cause. Climate change is that cause. But the climate and impacts of all kinds related to it (all very complicated) have been studied and socialized for quite some time. So - I’m not sure the approach is wrong. Frankly, I don’t know what’s right. If you think their position hurts them, what do you suggest they or we do instead? Honest question.
maximinus_thrax 3y ago
> This climate change thing has not only become an excuse for government incompetence (fires, infrastructure failure, etc) They can both be true at the same time, and it pains me to be reading this type of stuff on hacker news. This climate change 'thing' was predicted and talked about for decades while deniers said it was bullshit. When the effects are visible, it's actually just 'government incompetence'. When the government tries to shape up and propose a plan to deal with it, the plan is struck down as being 'neo-marxist' or 'radical left' because again, climate change is 'bullshit'. I swear, it seems like we live in a more ridiculous reality than 'Don't look up'.
- Alupis 3y ago
  *Bad plans are struck down, because they're bad. The "do something, anything" crowd got to run the show for a bit and the results were nothing like promised. Things like plastic straw bans that accomplish nothing, or ideas like banning airplanes entirely. These are radical extremist ideological views driven by fear and emotion - just like religion. Climate change activists shoot their own foot off with every opportunity. Propose sane, gradual changes without all the "world ending in 5 years" rhetoric and you will accomplish a lot more. It's a religion today. And just like other religions, it has it's own purity and ideology tests.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Ah, it's Sir Humphrey Appleby. >Propose sane, gradual changes without all the "world ending in 5 years" rhetoric We did, 50 years ago say "whoa, lets slow down this climate change thing" And guess what. We didn't. And by the time you wake up, the only thing you're going to have to say is "Well, it's too late to do anything now".
    - Alupis 3y ago
      > And by the time you wake up, the only thing you're going to have to say is "Well, it's too late to do anything now". You just did it again - that's the sensationalism that is not helpful. The world is not ending tomorrow or anytime soon. People need to cool it with that rhetoric because you lose everyone that's not already signed up for Sunday school.

WanderPanda 3y ago

How do you come to this definite conclusion? Would this have been something like a two to three sigma event given no climate change? I highly doubt it