4 ms·

No we never moved past that because the weather isn't getting more extreme. What happened is the left repeat this claim over and over, so people came to believe

by qcnguy 1y ago

No we never moved past that because the weather isn't getting more extreme. What happened is the left repeat this claim over and over, so people came to believe it. But where's the evidence? Are storms getting worse? No. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ace-north-atlantic-hurricanes https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ace-north-atlantic-hurric... Is drought getting worse? No. https://www.drought.gov/historical-information?dataset=1&selectedDateUSDM=20250805&selectedDateSpi=20250701 https://www.drought.gov/historical-information?dataset=1&sel... For people who don't Fucking Love Science!™ and think climatologists are corrupted by profit, what's the killer argument that weather is getting more extreme.

Nervhq 1y ago
[flagged]
- qcnguy 1y ago
  Yes it has religious qualities. The decline of Christianity opened a gap in the market. Climatism preaches a definition of good person that's tangible and easy to understand. You're a good person if you fear the wrath of Gaia, believe in an Armageddon in which humanity is punished for its sins, if you recycle your trash, if you buy indulgences when flying on vacation and if you never doubt the clergy even when they contradict themselves. You're a bad person if you doubt the integrity of the Chu-sorry the Institutions, if you don't believe in Armageddon, if you don't fear Gaia, if you think recycling is overhyped and above all if you don't Fucking Love Science!™ This belief system is highly attractive to the nerdy types who hang out here, because it explicitly privileges the nerdy and proclaims them the new priesthood, whilst draping itself in clothes designed to look like science and maths whilst refusing to hold itself to rigorous standards. So we get BEHOLD ALL YE UNBELIEVERS type rhetoric, and then people with graphs that say "nothing to see here" get booed but not responded to.
ben_w 1y ago
> Are storms getting worse? No. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ace-north-atlantic-hurricanes#sources-and-processing https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ace-north-atlantic-hurric... The graph you link to does not support your claim. Trend line has a slope of 0.2845587086 / year increase. Noisy graph, correlation coefficient is 0.3003115118, but still, it does not support your claim. > Is drought getting worse? No. https://www.drought.gov/historical-information?dataset=1&selectedDateUSDM=20250805&selectedDateSpi=20250701 https://www.drought.gov/historical-information?dataset=1&sel... Correct. This shows decreased droughts and increased flooding. Do you expect increased droughts from increased global temperatures? If so, why? Most of the world's surface is water, more heat means more water in the air.
- qcnguy 1y ago
  My claim is correct! A trend line calculated for any natural dataset will never be exactly zero. This doesn't mean humans need to speak in scientific notation as if we are robots. You are well aware of that, so please stop playing silly word games that don't advance the discussion. "Is it getting worse? No" is a perfectly reasonable way to describe storm data, which is why governments say the same thing: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/understanding-climate/uk-and-global-extreme-events-wind-storms https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/understanding-... "The UK State of the Climate report states that there are no compelling trends in storminess when considering maximum gust speeds over the last four decades. More comprehensive studies across the North Atlantic region have reached similar conclusions." If you're going to try and argue that "no trend" isn't the same as "no compelling trend".... please, just don't. Life is short. You've mis-interpreted the second graph. It doesn't show any increased flooding. It shows a very minor and unimportant trend in wetness. The trend is unimportant because increases in wetness don't imply increases in flooding, as the relationship is non-linear. Flooding has not increased so although I didn't mention flooding I could have added it to the list. See "Floods and Heavy Precipitation at the Global Scale: 100-Year Analysis and 180-Year Reconstruction" in JGR Atmospheres, Renard et al.
  - ben_w 1y ago
    > My claim is correct! No, it is not. More precisely: it is not justified by the evidence you chose to provide. > A trend line calculated for any natural dataset will never be exactly zero. This doesn't mean humans need to speak in scientific notation as if we are robots. You are well aware of that, so please stop playing silly word games that don't advance the discussion. The phrase "No trend" is a perfectly reasonable way to describe storm data, which is why governments say the same thing: You cannot say the opposite of what words mean, expect to not get called out on this (especially on a place like Hacker News), then when you are called out expect to get a positive reaction to saying "boo, stop playing word games". The average for the first 50 years is 79.24 units. The average for the most recent 50 years is 106.64.
    - qcnguy 1y ago

by qcnguy 1y ago

Nervhq 1y ago

[flagged]

qcnguy 1y ago
Yes it has religious qualities. The decline of Christianity opened a gap in the market. Climatism preaches a definition of good person that's tangible and easy to understand. You're a good person if you fear the wrath of Gaia, believe in an Armageddon in which humanity is punished for its sins, if you recycle your trash, if you buy indulgences when flying on vacation and if you never doubt the clergy even when they contradict themselves. You're a bad person if you doubt the integrity of the Chu-sorry the Institutions, if you don't believe in Armageddon, if you don't fear Gaia, if you think recycling is overhyped and above all if you don't Fucking Love Science!™ This belief system is highly attractive to the nerdy types who hang out here, because it explicitly privileges the nerdy and proclaims them the new priesthood, whilst draping itself in clothes designed to look like science and maths whilst refusing to hold itself to rigorous standards. So we get BEHOLD ALL YE UNBELIEVERS type rhetoric, and then people with graphs that say "nothing to see here" get booed but not responded to.

ben_w 1y ago

> Are storms getting worse? No. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ace-north-atlantic-hurricanes#sources-and-processing https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ace-north-atlantic-hurric... The graph you link to does not support your claim. Trend line has a slope of 0.2845587086 / year increase. Noisy graph, correlation coefficient is 0.3003115118, but still, it does not support your claim. > Is drought getting worse? No. https://www.drought.gov/historical-information?dataset=1&selectedDateUSDM=20250805&selectedDateSpi=20250701 https://www.drought.gov/historical-information?dataset=1&sel... Correct. This shows decreased droughts and increased flooding. Do you expect increased droughts from increased global temperatures? If so, why? Most of the world's surface is water, more heat means more water in the air.

qcnguy 1y ago
My claim is correct! A trend line calculated for any natural dataset will never be exactly zero. This doesn't mean humans need to speak in scientific notation as if we are robots. You are well aware of that, so please stop playing silly word games that don't advance the discussion. "Is it getting worse? No" is a perfectly reasonable way to describe storm data, which is why governments say the same thing: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/understanding-climate/uk-and-global-extreme-events-wind-storms https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/understanding-... "The UK State of the Climate report states that there are no compelling trends in storminess when considering maximum gust speeds over the last four decades. More comprehensive studies across the North Atlantic region have reached similar conclusions." If you're going to try and argue that "no trend" isn't the same as "no compelling trend".... please, just don't. Life is short. You've mis-interpreted the second graph. It doesn't show any increased flooding. It shows a very minor and unimportant trend in wetness. The trend is unimportant because increases in wetness don't imply increases in flooding, as the relationship is non-linear. Flooding has not increased so although I didn't mention flooding I could have added it to the list. See "Floods and Heavy Precipitation at the Global Scale: 100-Year Analysis and 180-Year Reconstruction" in JGR Atmospheres, Renard et al.
- ben_w 1y ago
  > My claim is correct! No, it is not. More precisely: it is not justified by the evidence you chose to provide. > A trend line calculated for any natural dataset will never be exactly zero. This doesn't mean humans need to speak in scientific notation as if we are robots. You are well aware of that, so please stop playing silly word games that don't advance the discussion. The phrase "No trend" is a perfectly reasonable way to describe storm data, which is why governments say the same thing: You cannot say the opposite of what words mean, expect to not get called out on this (especially on a place like Hacker News), then when you are called out expect to get a positive reaction to saying "boo, stop playing word games". The average for the first 50 years is 79.24 units. The average for the most recent 50 years is 106.64.
  - qcnguy 1y ago