Environmentalist group pushes to get hurricanes named after climate change deniers
22 replies, posted
[quote][B]Environmental activists in the US have launched an online campaign urging the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) to name hurricanes after politicians who are dismissive of climate change.[/B]
The WMO usually attributes first names to the storms in alphabetical order from the beginning of the season, and alternates between male and female names each year.
But the campaigners have drawn up a list of American politicians they say deny climate change and obstruct climate policy.
They want the destructive storms to be named after them instead.
[url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-28/push-to-name-hurricanes-after-climate-change-deniers/4917206]ABC News[/url][/quote]
Because smugly shaming your opposition is a good idea, right? :v:
For those of you who don't know this already, hurricanes have not been increasing in frequency or intensity over the last several hundred years and the jury is still out on whether or not global warming will have any effect. So, naming these after climate change deniers is basically saying "Hey, this is all on your head!" when...well, that's really not the case.
Glorious idea.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;41995028]Glorious idea.[/QUOTE]
It's an awful idea. You can't use false* science to attempt to shame and discredit your opposition.
[I]*false in this case referring to the idea that climate change is affecting our hurricanes, which it currently isn't. [/I]
And this is why I cannot take even 'sane' environmentalist groups seriously.
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;41995092]It's an awful idea. You can't use false* science to attempt to shame and discredit your opposition.
[I]*false in this case referring to the idea that climate change is affecting our hurricanes, which it currently isn't. [/I][/QUOTE]
Where does it say that they claim climate change is affecting hurricanes? They're pretty much saying climate change in general, not that they're affecting hurricanes.
[QUOTE=redBadger;41995207]Where does it say that they claim climate change is affecting hurricanes? They're pretty much saying climate change in general, not that they're affecting hurricanes.[/QUOTE]
It's implied that by naming the hurricanes after climate change deniers that somehow the hurricanes are a product of climate change. They're creating a connection between the two even though one doesn't exist, and that's what the average person is going to see.
Basically, what they're doing is putting all of that death and destruction on the heads of climate change deniers which [I]immediately[/I] creates the implication that somehow they're at fault, which is absolutely reprehensible in my opinion.
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;41995238]It's implied that by naming the hurricanes after climate change deniers that somehow the hurricanes are a product of climate change. They're creating a connection between the two even though one doesn't exist, and that's what the average person is going to see.
Basically, what they're doing is putting all of that death and destruction on the heads of climate change deniers which [I]immediately[/I] creates the implication that somehow they're at fault, which is absolutely reprehensible in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
I don't think there has to be a direct connection for this to be legit.
Hurricanes are a very tangible effect of what happens when the climate gets bad. We are unarguably worsening the climate. Environmental hazards will be called by the name of people who practically further worsen the environment, even if indirectly. Makes perfect sense to me.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;41995314]I don't think there has to be a direct connection for this to be legit.
[B]Hurricanes are a very tangible effect of what happens when the climate gets bad. [/B]We are unarguably worsening the climate. Environmental hazards will be called by the name of people who practically further worsen the environment, even if indirectly. Makes perfect sense to me.[/QUOTE]
They're not though. Hurricanes, like all severe weather, are a result of climate instability (which is a completely natural process; Earth's climate is constantly trying to achieve a balance between warm and cold air.) Hurricanes have been around for millions of years at the very minimum, and have likely existed for as long as this planet has had oceans.
Saying that hurricanes are a result of climate change or that they're getting worse is simply wrong, and trying to create the connection that someone is to blame is misleading at best.
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;41995371]They're not though. Hurricanes, like all severe weather, are a result of climate instability (which is a completely natural process; Earth's climate is constantly trying to achieve a balance between warm and cold air.) Hurricanes have been around for millions of years at the very minimum, and have likely existed for as long as this planet has had oceans.
Saying that hurricanes are a result of climate change or that they're getting worse is simply wrong, and trying to create the connection that someone is to blame is misleading at best.[/QUOTE]
You don't understand what I am saying. Hurricanes [I]are[/I] climate going [B]bad[/B] from our point of view, regardless of the cause of them being natural and artificial.
You link bad thingy happening in the environment with people who indirectly fuck up the environment, they don't have to be causing it directly for it to work.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;41995402]You don't understand what I am saying. Hurricanes [I]are[/I] climate going [B]bad[/B] from our point of view, regardless of the cause of them being natural and artificial.
You link bad thingy happening in the environment with people who indirectly fuck up the environment, [b]they don't have to be causing it directly for it to work.[/b][/QUOTE]
No, you aren't understanding what he is saying. He is saying that what you are saying is reprehensible.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;41995402]You link bad thingy happening in the environment with people who indirectly fuck up the environment, they don't have to be causing it directly for it to work.[/QUOTE]
But that's wrong. Blaming people for something that isn't their fault is NOT the right way of handling things. It comes across as petty, immature, and downright vindictive.
If we're going to blame climate change deniers for anything, blame them for holding back legislation regarding climate change. Don't blame them for something that isn't their fault and that nobody can control, ESPECIALLY when it involves death and destruction.
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;41995686]But that's wrong. Blaming people for something that isn't their fault is NOT the right way of handling things. It comes across as petty, immature, and downright vindictive.
If we're going to blame climate change deniers for anything, blame them for holding back legislation regarding climate change. Don't blame them for something that isn't their fault and that nobody can control, ESPECIALLY when it involves death and destruction.[/QUOTE]
Nobody is blaming them for the effect directly, you are making stupid assumptions over a statement which is meant to be far more subtle and indirect.
We need to [I]get rid[/I] of politicians who deny climate change. How to make them transparent? Name bad things happening with their name; people will get to hear about them particularly, they hopefully won't get elected again.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;41996085]Nobody is blaming them for the effect directly, you are making stupid assumptions over a statement which is meant to be far more subtle and indirect.
We need to [I]get rid[/I] of politicians who deny climate change. How to make them transparent? Name bad things happening with their name; people will get to hear about them particularly, they hopefully won't get elected again.[/QUOTE]
Maybe I'm looking at this from the wrong perspective, but that still sounds wrong. I don't like the idea of creating a connection between a deadly natural disaster and specific people, even if the intentions are good. Even if it's unintentional, it seems like it's putting all that death and destruction on their heads just so people will vote them out of office and that just doesn't sit right with me.
Here's how I see it. Let's say that people disagree with how President Obama has been handling the country during his presidency, so in an attempt to get people to vote him out of office the WMO decide to name the next hurricane after him. Let's say this hurricane causes billions of dollars in damage and results in the deaths of dozens of people, and let's say that people end up voting him out of office come next election. Okay, now he's out of office but his name and legacy has been dragged through the mud and is now permanently connected to that death and destruction, even though it wasn't his fault. Does the end [I]really[/I] justify the means when it comes to that?
Next up, they get named after famous gay people because they make god angry
I don't know the names of any major climate change deniers and I'm pretty sure majority of the world doesn't either so this is a rather futile action.
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;41995092]It's an awful idea. You can't use false* science to attempt to shame and discredit your opposition.
[I]*false in this case referring to the idea that climate change is affecting our hurricanes, which it currently isn't. [/I][/QUOTE]
I very well know that Hurricanes have been around for a long as fuckin time. But since they result during a specific range of temperature/humidity/air pressure, one can assume-even if it is almost not significant, that with a rise in temperatures globally, they could form a bit easier.
But that's just what I would assume, but I haven't studied weather systems in a long time.
[QUOTE=Karmah;41997139]I very well know that Hurricanes have been around for a long as fuckin time. But since they result during a specific range of temperature/humidity/air pressure, one can assume-even if it is almost not significant, that with a rise in temperatures globally, they could form a bit easier.
But that's just what I would assume, but I haven't studied weather systems in a long time.[/QUOTE]
From what I've read on the subject, hurricane frequency is not likely to increase at all, though we may see a minor increase in the intensity of these storms.
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;41995238]It's implied that by naming the hurricanes after climate change deniers that somehow the hurricanes are a product of climate change. They're creating a connection between the two even though one doesn't exist, and that's what the average person is going to see.
Basically, what they're doing is putting all of that death and destruction on the heads of climate change deniers which [I]immediately[/I] creates the implication that somehow they're at fault, which is absolutely reprehensible in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
Naming them after a hurricane is a metaphor, it's not an implication of any sort that hurricanes are a result of their inaction. It's saying that, by ignoring the problem, they're contributing to the self destruction of our planet. We could name wildfires after them, but those regions need the focus more than the assholes on Capitol Hill.
Hurricanes seem to be the poster child for global warming. I'm reminded of the "Inconvenient Truth" poster with the refinery smoke stack plumes turning into a large hurricane.
[QUOTE=OvB;41997449]Hurricanes seem to be the poster child for global warming. I'm reminded of the "Inconvenient Truth" poster with the refinery smoke stack plumes turning into a large hurricane.[/QUOTE]
Well of course they are, they're about the worst weather that can exist, anybody would want to see less hurricanes, so if you can artificially paint the blame for them on something (even if, as in the case, they're unrelated) then you're going to generate a lot of support for getting rid of whatever it is you've blamed.
It's also very much become that "if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes truth". Hurricanes have been used as propaganda for climate change so often plenty of people do really believe that's what causes them.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;41999674]Well of course they are, they're about the worst weather that can exist, anybody would want to see less hurricanes, so if you can artificially paint the blame for them on something (even if, as in the case, they're unrelated) then you're going to generate a lot of support for getting rid of whatever it is you've blamed.
It's also very much become that "if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes truth". Hurricanes have been used as propaganda for climate change so often plenty of people do really believe that's what causes them.[/QUOTE]
It also has an adverse effect. Uneducated people start believing that hurricanes are increasing because of climate change. They start spreading the word, dispute it being false. This is then used by the other unintelligent masses as 'proof' that climate change is false. So now we have 2 groups spewing bullshit while the few people that actually know what's going on cannot get through to either of them.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;41997313]Naming them after a hurricane is a metaphor, it's not an implication of any sort that hurricanes are a result of their inaction. It's saying that, by ignoring the problem, they're contributing to the self destruction of our planet. We could name wildfires after them, but those regions need the focus more than the assholes on Capitol Hill.[/QUOTE]
I...y'know, I get it, but I still think it's wrong. Here's my problem with it: Metaphor or not, you're still permanently linking that specific person to a natural disaster even though they had absolutely nothing to do with it. From my perspective, that's a horrible thing to do to someone. Beyond that though...I hope this doesn't sound arrogant but the vast majority of the public is pretty misinformed on subjects like this. Even if their intention is not to create the implication that "hurricanes are getting worse because of global warming and *insert politician* is to blame," some people are going to think that. As asteroidrules and Mr. Someguy said above, uneducated people are going to get all these misinformed ideas in their heads and we end up in even more trouble. It's just a bad idea all around.
Hurricane Rush Limbaugh
Aww yea.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.