4 ms·
Thank you for taking the time to respond. However, your answer has 'climate change' baked in. What evidence is there in this article to suggest climate change
by verisimi 3y ago
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
However, your answer has 'climate change' baked in. What evidence is there in this article to suggest climate change, rather than an intermittent event that has probably occurred numerous times in the past 2000 years? Why does the article say 'climate change'? Why do you think it? Why was the river low 2000 years ago, in pre-climate change times?
The thing is that there have always been droughts, floods, etc - these were recorded in biblical times. That most people frame 'changing weather' in terms of climate change is a question of psychology and education - but has nothing to do with any evidence anyone can see and verify. We have to simply told to accept the provided 'climate change' explanation.
The weather has always changed - its not running faster now, or at least I don't have any reason to this it is. What is running faster is the level of information being provided on weather.
- hnbad 3y ago> What evidence is there in this article to suggest climate change The article is not about climate change, it's about a drought. It doesn't try to present evidence for climate change. > The weather has always changed The plural of weather is not climate. Weather is an emergent effect of the climate. I don't have a collection of references to dump on you to demonstrate climate change because it's the scientific consensus, even within the United States. At this point, if you're scientifically literate enough to be on HN, you're scientifically literate enough to look up scientific explanations for why your intuitions and concerns about climate change maybe not being a thing after all are wrong. I'm not going to spend my finite lifetime trying to argue this with a person on the Internet, especially someone who might be religiously motivated.