Global warming may have already passed irreversible tipping point

[Shadowferal]

That's just a statistical correlation. The authors would need to do much more work if they want to claim that most of those 20,000 deaths were *caused* by said heatwaves.

This year’s temperatures would have been virtually impossible without climate crisis, scientists say

I'll take the scientists word over your stupidity every goddamn day.

[PC2]

Tell me you didn’t read the article or the linked studies without telling me you didn’t read them.

I did but the authors ignored all the other negative factors happening in Europe at the same time.

[Shadowferal]

I did but the authors ignored all the other negative factors happening in Europe at the same time.

Oh please enlighten us all. What factors did they deliberately ignore or omit?

[PC2]

Oh please enlighten us all. What factors did they deliberately ignore or omit?

The accumulation of health vulnerabilities and economic problems caused by Covid and the effects of the Ukraine war. By the way I'm not saying that nobody died exclusively due to the heat waves, I'm saying that you should be skeptical of sources that pull numbers out of a hat where the accuracy of the number cannot be tested by third parties.

[PC2]

They mentioned this in the article, which you’d know if you read it, but you didn’t.

Just because they mention a factor that does not mean that they are correct in regards to how they interpret the importance of the factor. If a source does not give you a testable explanation in regards to how they arrived at their death toll then that means you should be skeptical in regards to how they determine and categorize death tolls.

[PC2]

They did this too, again, you’d know if you read the article. So I ask again: why lie?

So in regards to the claim that 20k Europeans died recently because of heat waves do you think that is a scientific claim or a scientific truth? If they gave a testable explanation of their conclusion then could you point me to it? How is it even possible for scientists or a third party to test this kind of claim?

[Endus]

So in regards to the claim that 20k Europeans died recently because of heat waves do you think that is a scientific claim or a scientific truth? If they gave a testable explanation of their conclusion then could you point me to it? How is it even possible for scientists or a third party to test this kind of claim?

If you're not going to read the article, why would we ever believe you'll read the explanation of what's in the article?

[Mayhem]

That's just a statistical correlation. The authors would need to do much more work if they want to claim that most of those 20,000 deaths were *caused* by said heatwaves.

Anything to say about the statistical correlation of 5 floods this year alone in new south wales?

[Shadowferal]

Just because they mention a factor that does not mean that they are correct in regards to how they interpret the importance of the factor. If a source does not give you a testable explanation in regards to how they arrived at their death toll then that means you should be skeptical in regards to how they determine and categorize death tolls.

You read what you wanted, saw what you wanted, and provided nothing...certainly nothing that'd challenge the science.
Exactly what I expected from you.

[PC2]

Anything to say about the statistical correlation of 5 floods this year alone in new south wales?

For that most of the explanation could easily be about climate change. A part of it could be due to stochastic happenstance and a part of it could be about the fact that society finds more sensitive ways of measuring the world and categorizing events over time. Trying to explain that phenomena is less problematic than the issue of heat wave death because answering that question is mostly about understanding the principles of physics and it involves much less interpretations about society and how we should categorize human death tolls.

[unfilteredJW]

For that most of the explanation could easily be about climate change. A small part of it could be due to stochastic happenstance and a part of it could be about the fact that society finds more sensitive ways of measuring the world and categorizing events over time. Trying to explain that phenomena is less problematic than the issue of heat wave death because answering that question is mostly about understanding the principles of physics and it involves much less interpretations about society and how we should categorize human death tolls.

What the fuck is the science illiterate word salad?

[Shadowferal]

What the fuck is the science illiterate word salad?

He's saying "I don't know. It could be anything."

[PC2]

What the fuck is the science illiterate word salad?

Can you elaborate on your question? If you are scientifically literate then why do you think untestable statistical claims are scientifically rigorous?

He's saying "I don't know. It could be anything."

No I'm not, you should only speak for yourself and not for other people.

[Shadowferal]

Can you elaborate on your question? If you are scientifically literate then why do you think untestable statistical claims are scientifically rigorous?

That's not how it works genius.
You want to challenge the science then you need to show your fucking homework. And we already know that you have nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

No I'm not, you should only speak for yourself and not for other people.

And yet, you still only show what you don't know.

[Endus]

Can you elaborate on your question? If you are scientifically literate then why do you think untestable statistical claims are scientifically rigorous?

Statistical claims and models are testable, and falsifiable.

You're expressing scientific illiteracy.

[Mayhem]

For that most of the explanation could easily be about climate change. A part of it could be due to stochastic happenstance and a part of it could be about the fact that society finds more sensitive ways of measuring the world and categorizing events over time. Trying to explain that phenomena is less problematic than the issue of heat wave death because answering that question is mostly about understanding the principles of physics and it involves much less interpretations about society and how we should categorize human death tolls.

Try rewording it with words that you understand yourself, please. I am confused that you think excessive rainfalls somehow involve interpretations about society.

[PC2]

You want to challenge the science then you need to show your fucking homework. And we already know that you have nothing.

No you have that backwards, a source claiming to be an authority over truth or science needs to show their homework. The onus is not on the skeptic. They need to make it so anyone can easily check those "20,000 European heat wave deaths" with 20,000 death certificates where we can study the COD to see if the first and primary cause of death was death by heat wave in every case.

I would also wager your want to defeat pessimism is also a lie.

No I really am trying to figure out how I can convert climate change alarmists and environmentalists into optimists who are excited about the future of our planet. What do you think is the best way to counter pessimism here?

[Endus]

No you have that backwards, a source claiming to be an authority over truth or science needs to show their homework.

Science doesn't rely on "authority". It relies on consensus. You continue to demonstrate a complete inability to grasp basic concepts.

Also, their "homework" is publicly available. That's how, y'know, consensus forms.

The onus is not on the skeptic.

If you want to contest the consensus? It absolutely fuckin' is.

They need to make it so anyone can easily check those "20,000 European heat wave deaths" with 20,000 death certificates where we can study the COD to see if the first and primary cause of death was death by heat wave in every case.

That's not how anything works, no. If you want to contest their results and look over the millions of death certificates involved to figure out if there's a different pattern, by all means go ahead. It isn't a requirement, any more than we'd expect biologists to be able to individually count and name every single individual beetle of a given species before giving an estimate of their total population based on statistical assessments.

No I really am trying to figure out how I can convert climate change alarmists and environmentalists into optimists who are excited about the future of our planet. What do you think is the best way to counter pessimism here?

That you're describing it as "conversion", rather than "convincing", demonstrates unsurprising undertones. There is no need to "counter pessimism". Nor is optimism "correct" in any objective sense. Unless you've got actual facts and data to back up your claims, you're not gonna convince anyone of anything. You're gonna keep getting called out for trying to sell your snake-oil.

[Dezerte]

We need realists, not optimists.

We'd have less pessimists if we had more realists.

[PC2]

Science doesn't rely on "authority".

Yes exactly.

It relies on consensus.

No it never does and in fact all you're doing here is asserting that consensus is a source of authority in regards to science. The only thing science truly relies on is explanation that is testable by anyone.