For those who somehow missed it, the 'climate disruption arena' within Daily Kos has had a bit of a kerfuffle in the past two days in which my words play a leading role.
It started with Weatherdude's Stop saying everything is because of climate change. Just stop it. which I followed and responded to with Start saying everything is related to climate change. Just start it.
Weatherdude's diary has legitimate points but, not just in my opinion, went too far in arguing against discussion climate disruption when trying to make sense of (severe) weather events. My diary is a response highlighting a simple truth: humanity has had such an impact on the climate that is part of the environment in which every weather event occurs.
Clearly, at least to me, my title is driven by a point-counterpoint mirror imaging and not a literal statement. My clear understanding of that, however, doesn't clearly translate -- at least to some. And, well, my clear understanding of intent and meaning of phrases doesn't necessarily translate -- at least to some.
Exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally
The challenge of hyperbole: some will take it literally.
About the community ...
Before moving toward a discussion of two items, contemplate the comments sections of these two diaries. Some 700+ comments which, when putting aside the few focused on tertiary issues/character attacks or simple 'ata boys', have tremendous intellectual content. Honestly, there are 10s of diary-worthy comments within these discussions that stand as a good example of the passion and intellect so many bring to this 'virtual' community.
Two items ...
On reflection, two items from my diary seem to merit a moment of focus.
* Title: Start saying everything is related to climate change. Just start it.
* "this reader (not for one) saw Weatherdude's diary as concern trolling"
Title: Start saying everything is related to climate change. Just start it.
As stated in the introduction, to me it seemed utterly clear that the title was a "point-counterpoint" item that was not intended to be taken as a literal statement. Honestly, to not explicitly state that within the diary was likely an error. As I put it in a comment,
My key paragraph ... to me:
There are many factors that influence weather events. Among them: climate disruption. We are now, however, in a situation where failure to discuss whether and climate change / global warming / climate disruption could be a contributing factor would be, well, gross negligence.
Does it make sense for a weatherman to report: "Today, like yesterday, will be 73 and sunny amid continued climate disruption." No ... But, which seems to be the case far more often in the American press (and there is good literature examining media reporting), it is far more often that reporting (over days) of fires in the Moscow area goes on without discussing climate disruption ... along with droughts in the US Southwest ... along with floods ... along with heatwaves amid frequently broken high temperatures and rarely broken lows ... etc ... The challenge is not, not just in my opinion, that discussions are too often including climate disruption as a possible element influencing weather events (series of / patterns of weather events) but that is absent from the conversation.
Take my title literally. Should a literature professor begin a discussion of Hamlet with an effort to deconstruct Shakespeare to show how he forecast humanity's impact on our planetary system and the inevitability of climate disruption? Should a doctor bandaging a wound counsel the patient on the differing carbon count of two different bandage options? Should ...? Yes, the title was hyperbole ... hyperbole intended as mirror image of another title but, as per the definition of the word, not to be taken literally.
"this reader (not for one) saw Weatherdude's diary as concern trolling"
Awhile ago, I had an interesting professional experience in training focused on micro-interactions and the implications of workplace / workforce productivity. One element focused on 'apologies' with a highlighting that if you hear "but" (or other qualifying words) associated with an apology, it isn't a real apology. As I would have a "but" and other qualifiers, I can't do an honest apology. I do regret, however, that some read unintended meaning.
Too many (including Weatherdude) read those words as calling out Weatherdude in a character assassination. I regret (not apologize for) this since this was neither intent (and, by the way, not the way the words were read by many (most?) others) nor belief. Note that the wording is "saw ... as concern trolling". I was explicit about this as perception -- not stating it was the author or even the author's intent but was my (and, well, other's) reaction to the diary. (Sadly, those vitriolically reacting to my words didn't do the same ... along the lines of "I read this as your stating X ... do really mean/believe that?") Some readers' reactions (and Weatherdude's) led me to add an explicit note to the end of my diary:
SIGH ... TO BE CLEAR .. UPDATE. Writing that some of a diary reads like concern trolling is not (and is not meant as) an attack on another's character or capability or value or .... The diary began, with reason, pointing out that there was "truth in ..." And, while highlighting my arenas of disagreement, the final paragraph includes "even as there are elements within that are correct and with which I agree". This diary points to an -- important -- arena of disagreement as how to discuss a critically important issue.
For those who care, I also used the message system to send Weatherdude an explicit statement that my words did not call him a "concern troll" nor did I intend such an attack.
Let me try some ways to phrase it in question / response form: Do I believe (or call) Weatherdude is a "denier" or "skeptic" (in terms of rejecting science)? No. Do I believe that (or call) Weatherdude is a "troll" or a "concern troll" in this community? No. Do I believe that, based on some of his (assumption re 'dude') writings and assertions, that he might have a more skeptical and 'conservative' perspective on the nature of risks and trends related to climate disruption than the state of the science would suggest is appropriate? Yes.
Let's take that "perspective" toward a more positive path. Have I read and recommended Weatherdude diaries and comments? Yes. Do I believe that what Weatherdude writes is (most of the time) of high quality and a real contribution to this community's discussions? Yes. Have I learned from Weatherdude? Yes. And, do I expect Weatherdude to one of those Kossacks that I (and others) will continue to learn from? Yes.
For me, that "this reader ...saw Weatherdude's diary as concern trolling" stated (okay, perhaps "implied" is a better word) that I saw a strawman created (that too many were exaggerating climate change's impact and were overly discussing climate disruption) leading to a call to support a 'cease and desist discussing climate disruption in relation to weather reporting'. That was, as per above, my perception (what I "saw") of the diary. That 'cease and desist' implication (as per my quoting myself above) goes against the much more serious challenge that, especially in the United States, the complex linkages of climate disruption (and humanity's impacts on the climate) are far too rarely part of the public discourse and, far too often, weather events (such as large fires, droughts, floods, etc ...) are reported on (for days, weeks, etc ...) without any mention of whether and how climate change might be part of the reason for the conditions that fostered chaotic weather.
A good press item, today, that suggests that other path is in The Guardian: Warning: Extreme Weather Ahead.
Wherever you look, the climate appears to be in overdrive, with stronger weather patterns gripping large areas for longer and events veering between extremes. Last year, according to US meteorologist Jeff Masters, who co-founded leading climate tracker website Weather Underground, 17 countries experienced record temperatures. ...New analysis of natural disasters in 140 countries shows that climate is becoming more extreme ...
"I think that global 'weirding' is the best way to describe what we're seeing. We are used to certain conditions and there's a lot going on these days that is not what we're used to, that is outside our current frame of reference," says climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech University.
there may be some respite coming from extreme weather because the El Niño/La Niña episodes are now fading fast ... The World Meteorological Organization concludes, tentatively, that global weather will now return to something approaching normal. The trouble is, no one is too sure what normal is any more.
This piece clearly states, truthfully and accurately, that there is a lot going on (across the globe) that is unusual in terms of our traditional understanding of weather patterns. It also includes that there are many factors (El Niño/La Niña) outside climate change that help drive weather and weather patterns.
Yes, it would be irresponsible to state (definitively) that a specific weather "event" derives from global warming and is proof of climate disruption / global weirding / climate chaos. ... However, with "normal" becoming uncertain, it is as (f not more irresponsible) to ignore the changed context in which "extreme" (and "normal") weather events are occurring.
Many users had great ways to look at this and discuss the challenge of relating climate change to weather. Marsanges had one that I hope sticks with me:
the entire thing boils down to a misunderstanding, arising from a failure to grasp nuance. What climate scientists, and with them A Siegel, say, is that climate change nowadays is one of the factors influencing just about every weather event - it could not be otherwise - and therefore, discussing weather events of today is incomplete without taking the effect of it into account. Thats what is missing in the trivial statement that one specific weather event can not be attributed to climate change as "the" cause. It´s a category error.
compare it to rising sea level worldwide, and the level of any specific storm tide. That specific level could never be credited in its specific number to the general global rise, as it is always dependent on some local circumstance. But nonetheless, all levels - high or low - will rise as global sea level rises.
In this comparison you´ll maybe better see A. Siegel´s point: that failure to mention that global rise, factually equals disinformation - by leaving out one of the most important factors to take into account in, say, coastal defense planning.
Quite so is it with the weather. All weather, benign or malign, now happens under human imposed constraints of global warming and we need (desperately, in our own interest) to understand exactly how that human imposed effect is working through the individual weather events
Challenges within the discussions ...
While there are numerous high-quality comments to the two diaries, there are many that are not ... that misconstrue or point in wrong directions. Here are two issue arenas:
There were those who assert that we need to have absolute perfection in the science before making any comment. Simply put, this is at odds with science, which simply never hits "perfection". (What is about the highest achievement in the scientific world? Developing knowledge that leads to changing a Theory, 'proving' something false or inadequate while providing alternative (or richer) explanation.)
There were those who asserted that I asserted that climate disruption is "the cause" for everything. For any who are in that domain, go back and read my words (or Marsanges' above or ...).
In simple truth, it has now become impossible to seriously discuss weather patterns and events without putting it in the context of climate change (climate disruption / global warming).... Thus, while it is absolutely true that it remains (and likely will remain) impossible to say "X" event occurred "because of" global warming, it is also true that global warming is now a factor (among many other factors) that impact weather events -- all weather events.