Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Alright. There's a bunch of claims made here, so I'll be doing a bit more splitting up than usual and this will get a bit long. First, though, thank you for expressing such as you did and moving this discussion here, much as it probably would have been slightly better to provide a direct link to here as courtesy in the thread that you moved this part of the discussion from and a direct link/quote to what you were responding to in this thread. Luckily, I had posted previously in this part of the thread, though, so it didn't matter as much.
After checking that again... I'm ruling that claim as false, given the "only" part. It is true that there's notably more effect in the direction that you're emphasizing, though, because, in general, cold things are warming up faster than warm things, with the Arctic, for example, heating up at roughly double the average rise.
To poke at some effects of that in the US, incidentally, NPR's got a piece that pokes at the subject a bit. How Warming Winters Are Affecting Everything. Warming winters would be a notable problem, even if it was just that, but to be clear -
Summers Are Getting Hotter Faster, Especially in North America's Farm Belt
Four decades of satellite data confirm man-made global warming and find seasonal warming trends that could threaten crops.
First, your source?
Absent that, I'll scrounge around a little. You're referring to, perhaps, stuff like this? Not much change in projected difference? Maybe some of this?
With that said, a short summation of what looks like the overall evidence on the issue is...
To poke at that further,
As noted, there is uncertainty about the specifics of the subject for a number of reasons, not least being very significant changes in the quality of data collection, but your claim here seems to suffer notably from the common phenomenon in climate change denial of trying to cherry pick some fact or claim that does not represent the larger picture all that well.
Fun fact/link on one aspect of hurricane damage, though, just because. Today's hurricanes kill way fewer Americans, and NOAA’s satellites are the reason why
As for forest fires, that's a generally more complex subject. Trying to solely focus on one aspect of forest fires numbers is inevitably going to be misleading. For example, when significant areas of forest are removed to make space for agriculture, that's significant area that can no longer be counted when it comes to raw numbers for how many forest fires are happening. It's entirely plausible that fires can happen at greater frequency and severity in the remainder of the forest while the raw numbers go down. To be clear, I'm using that as an example of why it's wrong to look at more complex problems like that through a narrow lens when evaluating them, rather than presenting that as a sole cause.
To poke further into the larger issues -
Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: perceptions versus realities in a changing world
From the abstract there -
It's honestly not hard to cherry pick from that at all, given that again, forest fires are a notably more complex issue than the simplistic versions that tend to get tossed around. I do suggest reviewing that in greater detail if you're actually interested, though, with the added note that it's still not even close to a full overview. As well as this article from the same people (well, plus one) that's much more recent - Wildfires Are Becoming so Frequent and Intense They Are Turning Forests From Carbon Sinks Into Climate Heaters.
First, sea levels, then. You sound a bit dismissive about this, but even a few inches has a very disproportionate effect on humans. Something like 40% of humans live quite close to the coasts and 8 out of 10 of the biggest cities in the world are on the coast. What's projected to happen in the next thirty years is expected to do quite a huge amount of damage and displace potentially hundreds of millions of people. That displacement and damage then has plenty of subsequent consequences as well.
Second... your analysis is wildly incomplete if those are the only factors you're looking at. Global warming and the resulting climate change is not all bad, but the negatives significantly outweigh the positives.
They're not an authority. To be clear, they weren't being used as an authority in what I said, either. What I said is that they *knew* with great certainty (because of the actual authorities on the subject) and decided to work hard and spend big to obfuscate what they knew to be the case for the sake of profits. That's to the point where Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway Public
As early as the 1950s, the groups shared scientists and publicists to downplay dangers of smoking and climate change
Do you dispute this?
*sigh* Honestly, this post is far too long for easy consumption already and has taken a dramatically greater amount of my time than it took for you, so I'm not going to look into this part more deeply and respond as I did the previous parts. Given the nature of the rest of your response, though, I don't consider it at all likely that there's all that much merit to what you're saying here when it's put into the larger picture. Hopefully, you've learned a bit, either way.
After checking that again... I'm ruling that claim as false, given the "only" part. It is true that there's notably more effect in the direction that you're emphasizing, though, because, in general, cold things are warming up faster than warm things, with the Arctic, for example, heating up at roughly double the average rise.
To poke at some effects of that in the US, incidentally, NPR's got a piece that pokes at the subject a bit. How Warming Winters Are Affecting Everything. Warming winters would be a notable problem, even if it was just that, but to be clear -
Summers Are Getting Hotter Faster, Especially in North America's Farm Belt
Four decades of satellite data confirm man-made global warming and find seasonal warming trends that could threaten crops.
First, your source?
Absent that, I'll scrounge around a little. You're referring to, perhaps, stuff like this? Not much change in projected difference? Maybe some of this?
The latter, I should note is argued by H. Leighton Steward -
Naturally, that the guy has severe financial conflicts of interest doesn't negate what he says directly, but really should make you much more wary of what he's pushing.
With that said, a short summation of what looks like the overall evidence on the issue is...
To poke at that further,
As noted, there is uncertainty about the specifics of the subject for a number of reasons, not least being very significant changes in the quality of data collection, but your claim here seems to suffer notably from the common phenomenon in climate change denial of trying to cherry pick some fact or claim that does not represent the larger picture all that well.
Fun fact/link on one aspect of hurricane damage, though, just because. Today's hurricanes kill way fewer Americans, and NOAA’s satellites are the reason why
As for forest fires, that's a generally more complex subject. Trying to solely focus on one aspect of forest fires numbers is inevitably going to be misleading. For example, when significant areas of forest are removed to make space for agriculture, that's significant area that can no longer be counted when it comes to raw numbers for how many forest fires are happening. It's entirely plausible that fires can happen at greater frequency and severity in the remainder of the forest while the raw numbers go down. To be clear, I'm using that as an example of why it's wrong to look at more complex problems like that through a narrow lens when evaluating them, rather than presenting that as a sole cause.
To poke further into the larger issues -
Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: perceptions versus realities in a changing world
From the abstract there -
It's honestly not hard to cherry pick from that at all, given that again, forest fires are a notably more complex issue than the simplistic versions that tend to get tossed around. I do suggest reviewing that in greater detail if you're actually interested, though, with the added note that it's still not even close to a full overview. As well as this article from the same people (well, plus one) that's much more recent - Wildfires Are Becoming so Frequent and Intense They Are Turning Forests From Carbon Sinks Into Climate Heaters.
First, sea levels, then. You sound a bit dismissive about this, but even a few inches has a very disproportionate effect on humans. Something like 40% of humans live quite close to the coasts and 8 out of 10 of the biggest cities in the world are on the coast. What's projected to happen in the next thirty years is expected to do quite a huge amount of damage and displace potentially hundreds of millions of people. That displacement and damage then has plenty of subsequent consequences as well.
Second... your analysis is wildly incomplete if those are the only factors you're looking at. Global warming and the resulting climate change is not all bad, but the negatives significantly outweigh the positives.
They're not an authority. To be clear, they weren't being used as an authority in what I said, either. What I said is that they *knew* with great certainty (because of the actual authorities on the subject) and decided to work hard and spend big to obfuscate what they knew to be the case for the sake of profits. That's to the point where Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway Public
As early as the 1950s, the groups shared scientists and publicists to downplay dangers of smoking and climate change
Do you dispute this?
*sigh* Honestly, this post is far too long for easy consumption already and has taken a dramatically greater amount of my time than it took for you, so I'm not going to look into this part more deeply and respond as I did the previous parts. Given the nature of the rest of your response, though, I don't consider it at all likely that there's all that much merit to what you're saying here when it's put into the larger picture. Hopefully, you've learned a bit, either way.
Last edited:
