3 ms·

As I read it, he's not denying the effects either. He's just saying that not everything bad that happens wrt climate and weather is due to "climate change". S

by rmah 2y ago

As I read it, he's not denying the effects either. He's just saying that not everything bad that happens wrt climate and weather is due to "climate change". Sometimes, it's just variations, which have always happened.

ars 2y ago
These days everything is blamed on climate change. And when people point out natural variation, they get bashed. A recent example is the CA fires, there is zero evidence linking them to climate change - they did a study and found no effect - which of course was reported as "climate change to blame".
- inetknght 2y ago
  > there is zero evidence linking them to climate change - they did a study and found no effect Can you point to this study? Or at least point to this "they" to whom you're referring?
  - ayolisup 2y ago
    My bad for double posting, but they are probably referring to [this one](https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/climate-change-increased-the-likelihood-of-wildfire-disaster-in-highly-exposed-los-angeles-area/ https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/climate-change-incre...), which says the exact opposite.
    - ars 2y ago
      Yes, that's the study that shows zero effect. The authors completely messed up in their write up of the study. That study is the definition of bad science. Watch this if you want more info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDsjeKo3u3o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDsjeKo3u3o
  - ars 2y ago
    She explains better than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDsjeKo3u3o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDsjeKo3u3o
- siffin 2y ago
  What are you talking about? The burden is on you to explain how manipulating the chemical makeup of the atmosphere DOESN'T have a direct impact, even at the tiniest levels (1ppm). At the levels we're at now, CO2e imbalances definitely impact every single weather event on the planet to some degree, and you'd have to be delusional not to accept that.
  - ars 2y ago
    When the level of random variation is greater than the change attributed to an event it's not possible to claim an event caused something. The random changes overwhelm and possible change. If you want to claim a change anyway, the burden is on you to do the modeling and math to prove it.
- ayolisup 2y ago
  Unless we're talking about two different studies, saying you misinterpreted it is an understatement (https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/climate-change-increased-the-likelihood-of-wildfire-disaster-in-highly-exposed-los-angeles-area/ https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/climate-change-incre...)
  - ars 2y ago
    No, I did not misinterpret it. That study does not show what you think it does. i.e. the actual data does not lead to the conclusion presented. The actual data shows zero effect, the written conclusion is a work of fiction.

by rmah 2y ago

ars 2y ago

These days everything is blamed on climate change. And when people point out natural variation, they get bashed. A recent example is the CA fires, there is zero evidence linking them to climate change - they did a study and found no effect - which of course was reported as "climate change to blame".

inetknght 2y ago
> there is zero evidence linking them to climate change - they did a study and found no effect Can you point to this study? Or at least point to this "they" to whom you're referring?
- ayolisup 2y ago
  My bad for double posting, but they are probably referring to [this one](https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/climate-change-increased-the-likelihood-of-wildfire-disaster-in-highly-exposed-los-angeles-area/ https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/climate-change-incre...), which says the exact opposite.
  - ars 2y ago
    Yes, that's the study that shows zero effect. The authors completely messed up in their write up of the study. That study is the definition of bad science. Watch this if you want more info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDsjeKo3u3o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDsjeKo3u3o
- ars 2y ago
  She explains better than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDsjeKo3u3o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDsjeKo3u3o
siffin 2y ago
What are you talking about? The burden is on you to explain how manipulating the chemical makeup of the atmosphere DOESN'T have a direct impact, even at the tiniest levels (1ppm). At the levels we're at now, CO2e imbalances definitely impact every single weather event on the planet to some degree, and you'd have to be delusional not to accept that.
- ars 2y ago
  When the level of random variation is greater than the change attributed to an event it's not possible to claim an event caused something. The random changes overwhelm and possible change. If you want to claim a change anyway, the burden is on you to do the modeling and math to prove it.
ayolisup 2y ago
Unless we're talking about two different studies, saying you misinterpreted it is an understatement (https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/climate-change-increased-the-likelihood-of-wildfire-disaster-in-highly-exposed-los-angeles-area/ https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/climate-change-incre...)
- ars 2y ago
  No, I did not misinterpret it. That study does not show what you think it does. i.e. the actual data does not lead to the conclusion presented. The actual data shows zero effect, the written conclusion is a work of fiction.