7 ms·

What you are saying is technically not wrong, but misleading, as it omits the fact the dams broke due to a natural disaster, Storm Daniel, which previously also

by paint 3y ago

What you are saying is technically not wrong, but misleading, as it omits the fact the dams broke due to a natural disaster, Storm Daniel, which previously also "affected Greece, Bulgaria, and Turkey with extensive flooding.". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Daniel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Daniel

swader999 3y ago
No kidding, but to say that climate change did this when hurricanes have been on the decline the last thirty years is misleading. This is weather and engineering failures. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24268-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24268-5
- Eduard 3y ago
  > No kidding, but to say that climate change did this when hurricanes have been on the decline the last thirty years is misleading. This is weather and engineering failures. > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24268-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24268-5 This HN user categorically and obsessively has their own opinion on climate change, and how it is influenced by humans. Their "evidence research" is taking the first Google search result that they believe to support their position in the discussion at hand - even if it doesn't make sense (hurricanes in North America versus Mediterranean). If they don't invest in such sloppy research, their arguments hit rock-bottom Tiktok factoid niveau. one can better just assume nonsense/randomizing/lying and ignore this user for anything climate-related.
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    Do you understand how creepy it is of you to go digging into other users comment history and posting about it when there's a disagreement on a topic? Maybe let the arguments speak for themselves? We're not supposed to be some kind of commissars looking for dissidents or witch hunters looking for heretics.
    - dredmorbius 3y ago
      And why should commenting and posting history count any less than a specific comment? That seems to be ... integral to the function of the site itself: <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20%22you%27ve%20been%22&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...> Reputation and patterns of behavior matter.
      - swader999 3y ago
        Well I guess I'm guilty of posting my own opinion on various aspects of climate change along with links from time to time. Is that evil in your books, should I be banned? I think you can go back to every post I've ever made and not find any cases of ad hominem attacks. I'm satisfied with that. Edit, yup, it was poor maintenance on the dam as indicated in 2021: https://sebhau.edu.ly/journal/jopas/article/view/2137 https://sebhau.edu.ly/journal/jopas/article/view/2137
        dredmorbius 3y ago
        <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32103055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32103055> <https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/naked-truth/201706/your-right-opinion-does-not-make-your-opinion-valid https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/naked-truth/201706/y...>
      - carlosjobim 3y ago
        > And why should commenting and posting history count any less than a specific comment? Because the user/writer is completely unimportant in an endless flowing sea of anonymous text. Whatever one of us writes in a comment, somebody else could as easily have written, that's why only the argument itself is interesting. It is misguided effort to care about any "reputation" of an anonymous user on an anonymous discussion platform, unless you're moderating said platform. Apologies for the meta-discussion.
        dredmorbius 3y ago
  - swader999 3y ago
    Well forget studies then, look at the data: http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/index.php?arch&loc=global http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/index.php?arch&... Use the drop down and look at accumulated cyclone energy. There's no trend in 42 years and last year was the third lowest total tropical cyclone energy for earth in the last 42 years. This year seems on track to be very low for cyclone energy too. Costs in terms of percent of GDP are falling: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17477891.2018.1540343?journalCode=tenh20 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17477891.2018.15... And most importantly, death rates for weather are drastically reduced over the last hundred years: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-deaths-from-natural-disasters?time=earliest..2019 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-deaths-from-nat...
    - swader999 3y ago
      Edit, crickets? C'mon parent, what do you say to this data?

by paint 3y ago

swader999 3y ago

No kidding, but to say that climate change did this when hurricanes have been on the decline the last thirty years is misleading. This is weather and engineering failures. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24268-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24268-5

Eduard 3y ago
> No kidding, but to say that climate change did this when hurricanes have been on the decline the last thirty years is misleading. This is weather and engineering failures. > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24268-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24268-5 This HN user categorically and obsessively has their own opinion on climate change, and how it is influenced by humans. Their "evidence research" is taking the first Google search result that they believe to support their position in the discussion at hand - even if it doesn't make sense (hurricanes in North America versus Mediterranean). If they don't invest in such sloppy research, their arguments hit rock-bottom Tiktok factoid niveau. one can better just assume nonsense/randomizing/lying and ignore this user for anything climate-related.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  Do you understand how creepy it is of you to go digging into other users comment history and posting about it when there's a disagreement on a topic? Maybe let the arguments speak for themselves? We're not supposed to be some kind of commissars looking for dissidents or witch hunters looking for heretics.
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    And why should commenting and posting history count any less than a specific comment? That seems to be ... integral to the function of the site itself: <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20%22you%27ve%20been%22&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...> Reputation and patterns of behavior matter.
    - swader999 3y ago
      Well I guess I'm guilty of posting my own opinion on various aspects of climate change along with links from time to time. Is that evil in your books, should I be banned? I think you can go back to every post I've ever made and not find any cases of ad hominem attacks. I'm satisfied with that. Edit, yup, it was poor maintenance on the dam as indicated in 2021: https://sebhau.edu.ly/journal/jopas/article/view/2137 https://sebhau.edu.ly/journal/jopas/article/view/2137
      - dredmorbius 3y ago
        <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32103055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32103055> <https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/naked-truth/201706/your-right-opinion-does-not-make-your-opinion-valid https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/naked-truth/201706/y...>
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      > And why should commenting and posting history count any less than a specific comment? Because the user/writer is completely unimportant in an endless flowing sea of anonymous text. Whatever one of us writes in a comment, somebody else could as easily have written, that's why only the argument itself is interesting. It is misguided effort to care about any "reputation" of an anonymous user on an anonymous discussion platform, unless you're moderating said platform. Apologies for the meta-discussion.
      - dredmorbius 3y ago
- swader999 3y ago
  Well forget studies then, look at the data: http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/index.php?arch&loc=global http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/index.php?arch&... Use the drop down and look at accumulated cyclone energy. There's no trend in 42 years and last year was the third lowest total tropical cyclone energy for earth in the last 42 years. This year seems on track to be very low for cyclone energy too. Costs in terms of percent of GDP are falling: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17477891.2018.1540343?journalCode=tenh20 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17477891.2018.15... And most importantly, death rates for weather are drastically reduced over the last hundred years: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-deaths-from-natural-disasters?time=earliest..2019 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-deaths-from-nat...
  - swader999 3y ago
    Edit, crickets? C'mon parent, what do you say to this data?