Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 224 posts

Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming

#201

Post by nickd2001 »

schnebbau wrote: post #100

I feel like I've gone through the five stages of grief with climate change, and I'm finally at acceptance. There are too many forces pushing it further than to prevent it, and governments won't come together to actually do something about it until it's too late. Everything that has a beginning has an end, and maybe this is ours. Over time the earth will heal without us, so instead of worrying about something out of o…

No offence intended, but that seems to me like defeatism, and precisely what no-one must do. While there's any chance to fix this problem, IMHO everyone should do the little they can. e:g, never get in an aeroplane again and tell people why. Buy local food / grow your own, refuse to purchase products shipped from far when there are local alternatives. And tell people why. Ensure any investments you have are not in fossil fuel companies. And tell people why. Drive far less, or not at all. Red meat far less, or not at all. And tell people why! History teaches us there were plenty of totally unacceptable things that have happened and eventually people against the odds stopped this . To pluck a random example, there was a time in the UK for example when women weren't allowed to vote. That got fixed. ;) There must have been some very strong vested interests at the time that didn't want women to vote but it got overturned by strength of public feeling. I really hope this year's weather in N America will be a wake-up call.

Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming

#202

Post by syops »

flavius29663 wrote: post #197
syops wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are lots of examples of where science has gotten it wrong. So what do we do, philosophically, with this fact? It is possible that the 97+% of climate scientists are wrong in their beliefs. Let us ponder this possibility and assign it an unknown probability of X. Let us now ponder the following two facts. Every known example of where science has gotten it wrong is also an example of where science has corrected i…

> 97+% of climate scientists People should understand what that 97% number means. It means that from the papers that addressed the global warming or any effect AND made a position on it, 97% acknowledged that at least to some degree that humans do indeed contribute to global warming. That is the bar for the 97% number. 97% does not address: - how much humans contribute to global warming - how large the positive feedb…

The fallacy to which you alluded is actually the fallacy of the false appeal to authority. It is not an argumentative fallacy to appeal to the knowledge of experts in their area of expertise. A large majority of everything you believe to be true has not been independently verified by yourself. You have and continue to rely on the knowledge of others.

The 97% I alluded to is not what you claim it to mean.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-clima...

Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming

#203

Post by akavel »

epistasis wrote: post #138
akavel wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, because admitting that climate change is reality would in consequence require massive, expensive, and hugely uncomfortable changes in one's lifestyle. Plus, not uncommonly, becoming de facto socially ostracised in at least some (though possibly all) of one's social circles. Also, there's not even some concrete "ozone layer hole" you could point your finger at, but rather some vague: "Some, though not all [FUD wo…

> admitting that climate change is reality would in consequence require massive, expensive, and hugely uncomfortable changes in one's lifestyle. I think you are right about people's thoughts on this. But it's important to counter that it won't be massively expensive to switch away from fossil fuels, and will likely be cheaper. Decarbonization while maintaining lifestyles, and increasing the energy consumption of deve…

Thanks for the great reply, with some new thoughts, but also reminding me of some thoughts I kept before but apparently forgot recently, argh. In particular, that individual people are just a tiny percentage polluter, and the main offenders are various industries (where the oil ones in particular purposefully shifted the blame in people's minds to individuals via strong PR). In fact, I long didn't see point in changing my lifestyle, as my "carbon footprint" (with even this being creative PR to shift blame to individuals) and other individual pollution is not really relevant quantitively speaking. Only recently I switched my thinking, in that although individuals' waste is technically irrelevant, displaying caring-about-nature actions and attitude can hopefully influence other people and thus create a "political climate" where politicians, to try and please people, start caring more about nature and as a result hopefully start pushing industries to switch away from polluting energy sources etc. Argh, I wish it was all simpler to explain and rally people behind.

Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming

#204

Post by [deleted] »

nickd2001 wrote: post #201
schnebbau wrote: post #100

I feel like I've gone through the five stages of grief with climate change, and I'm finally at acceptance. There are too many forces pushing it further than to prevent it, and governments won't come together to actually do something about it until it's too late. Everything that has a beginning has an end, and maybe this is ours. Over time the earth will heal without us, so instead of worrying about something out of o…

No offence intended, but that seems to me like defeatism, and precisely what no-one must do. While there's any chance to fix this problem, IMHO everyone should do the little they can. e:g, never get in an aeroplane again and tell people why. Buy local food / grow your own, refuse to purchase products shipped from far when there are local alternatives. And tell people why. Ensure any investments you have are not in fo…

[deleted]

Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming

#205

Post by flavius29663 »

syops wrote: post #202
flavius29663 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 97+% of climate scientists People should understand what that 97% number means. It means that from the papers that addressed the global warming or any effect AND made a position on it, 97% acknowledged that at least to some degree that humans do indeed contribute to global warming. That is the bar for the 97% number. 97% does not address: - how much humans contribute to global warming - how large the positive feedb…

The fallacy to which you alluded is actually the fallacy of the false appeal to authority. It is not an argumentative fallacy to appeal to the knowledge of experts in their area of expertise. A large majority of everything you believe to be true has not been independently verified by yourself. You have and continue to rely on the knowledge of others. The 97% I alluded to is not what you claim it to mean. https://clim…

it is a fallacy to appeal to authority (97%) for anything other than "humans do cause global warming".

Look at your link on NASA's page, the statements from societies are something like this:

> The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities.

Which is what the 97% covers, maybe a bit more.

I haven't seen any further statements based on the 97%: for weather events, for policies, for gravity - this is where the fallacy happens. And you did it too in your post, the OP was calling for nuance in regards to gravity, weather and policies, and as a reply you just pulled out the 97%

Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming

#206

Post by epistasis »

akavel wrote: post #203
epistasis wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> admitting that climate change is reality would in consequence require massive, expensive, and hugely uncomfortable changes in one's lifestyle. I think you are right about people's thoughts on this. But it's important to counter that it won't be massively expensive to switch away from fossil fuels, and will likely be cheaper. Decarbonization while maintaining lifestyles, and increasing the energy consumption of deve…

Thanks for the great reply, with some new thoughts, but also reminding me of some thoughts I kept before but apparently forgot recently, argh. In particular, that individual people are just a tiny percentage polluter, and the main offenders are various industries (where the oil ones in particular purposefully shifted the blame in people's minds to individuals via strong PR). In fact, I long didn't see point in changi…

Yeah, the economy is a hugely complex interplay of forces. Nobody is completely guilty, nobody is completely innocent. (I make an exception for agents that participate in intentional deception like fossil fuel companies. If the economy and democracy are information processing systems, employing deceptive PR to lie to the system is 100% bad).

I've come to view my own personal choices exactly as you. It's not as much about changing my personal footprint, as it is using my dollars towards investment in changing infrastructure.

I had to replace my 50 year old gas furnace last year, and it was suuuuper hard to get anybody to even propose a heat pump rather than natural gas. So I made sure to call tons of local HVAC places, and make sure that everyone that wouldn't bid on a heat pump knew that the reason I wasn't going with them was because of that. For deeply conservative, low-information and low-innovation parts of the economy like residential HVAC, it will probably take regulation for them to offer the better choices. But I can at least try to let them know that they would have a customer base if they ever decide to try something new.

Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming

#207

Post by me_me_me »

aww_dang wrote: post #178
syops wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are lots of examples of where science has gotten it wrong. So what do we do, philosophically, with this fact? It is possible that the 97+% of climate scientists are wrong in their beliefs. Let us ponder this possibility and assign it an unknown probability of X. Let us now ponder the following two facts. Every known example of where science has gotten it wrong is also an example of where science has corrected i…

>Every known example of where science has gotten it wrong is also an example of where science has corrected itself. That's a bit of survivor's bias isn't it? Where science hasn't "corrected" people disparage dissent or are unaware. If you're game, we might observe that humans are flawed and unable to make perfect observations. Thus empirical knowledge is always flawed and will continuously be "correcting", but never…

I am not saying smoking kills, all I am saying that there is not enough evidence that they do.

So relax and have a cigarette...

Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming

#208

Post by read_if_gay_ »

BobbyJo wrote: post #192
read_if_gay_ wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Climate change produces heat waves by definition . If we're going to take a heat wave as hard proof for climate change, then climate change is a valid theory by definition , and that's not exactly scientific. > If that weren't the case, you'd be correct, but alas. Why so snarky?

Wasn't trying to be snarky. And you're inverting my statements. I'm saying, precisely, that heat waves are not definitive evidence of climate change, the same way colder than average weather is not hard evidence against it. The evidence in my analogy would be blood alcohol tests of the people who crashed, and the evidence in the case of climate change is the measured/calculating heat trapping ability of the atmospher…

> My point is, we have evidence enough that is is valid to say the former, and that is what differentiates it from the latter.

That’s valid, wasn’t clear to me from the example in your initial post.

Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming

#209

Post by flavius29663 »

gjulianm wrote: post #126
CA0DA wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny how these ideas are touted until there's an hot summer then all the articles talking about how this _weather_ is a _clear example_ of climate change.

Funny how many times the same thing needs to be explained. At some point one thinks that people making this argument are arguing in bad faith. > there's an hot summer Didn't you notice that, lately, every summer is "a hot summer" and "warmer than before"?

> warmer than before

The summers were "getting warmer than before" for the past 400 years, before anthropocentric global warming. Look at any long term trend for temperature. e.g. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/last-2000-years

These are such weak arguments. It's pretty settled that humans do influence climate. Why do we need to appeal to fallacies when discussing about it?

Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming

#210

Post by polotics »

aww_dang wrote: post #165
syops wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m curious why you ask this question. Does the answer matter or in some way lead to a broader point? If so what is that point? Assume it’s the worst possible energy source as far as you are concerned. Then what is your response?

It does seem a bit hypocritical the poster's part if we assume he used the worst possible energy source. AC is a comfort and luxury. If we assume that climate apocalypse is impending, then going without a few comforts would seem reasonable. >there's no political will or consensus to combat climate change; it's also not a one nation issue. Think about this in the context of the warmist's proposals for limiting energy…

So now there are "warmists" who obviously target the developing world with their misplaced ire? Interesting. I guess the good thing with a strawman is it burns easily, right?
Post reply on HN