Lowest Six-Month Human Death Toll From Bad Weather Ever (The Daily Sceptic) \ stacker news ~ideasfromtheedge

pull down to refresh

Lowest Six-Month Human Death Toll From Bad Weather Ever (The Daily Sceptic)dailysceptic.org/2025/07/28/lowest-six-month-human-death-toll-from-bad-weather-since-records-began/

2045 sats \ 13 comments \ @optimism 17h ideasfromtheedge

The article is about how deaths from weather events is declining, which is great. Go us!

It also says something that triggered me at the conclusion:

Put simply, the [climate change] activists are terrified to enter into genuine dialogue.

I feel this for both sides of the "dialogue" (it's imho not a dialogue or a debate, it's a fully polarised shitshow where no one listens to each other and doubles down in the infinite.)

Can both poles have valid points? Can it be possible that there's a middle ground where it helps to reduce pollution and to keep on working on defensive measures that reduce loss of life? I know that this is just a silly idea but perhaps, the real problem is the polarization and the endless doubling down.

view all related items

0 new comment

220 sats \ 6 replies \ @Undisciplined 17h

Here you go: climate change is real and it’s not a big problem.

That’s what I think comes from listening to both sides.

0 new comment

42 sats \ 5 replies \ @optimism OP 17h

You know this and I know this, but is that "middle ground" making headlines? I feel it isn't. Is there any incentive left to not cater to the polarization?

0 new comment

110 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined 16h

It can't make headlines because those are mostly written by the people trying to sell an apocalypse.

On the other side, people aren't willing to concede an inch because the climate hysterics are openly totalitarian and every concession will result in real loss of freedoms.

0 new comment

42 sats \ 3 replies \ @optimism OP 16h

Valid - I guess the only answer to "don't like the headlines" is "write your own headlines".

0 new comment

110 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 16h

That's what we're trying to do, isn't it? Build a better information system

0 new comment

42 sats \ 1 reply \ @optimism OP 16h

Yes, though for me personally, I'm probably too heavy on criticism and too light on original content.

view all 1 replies

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @SqNr65 13h

Idk man.. seems to me the skeptics spend all day and night conceding and it's never enough for the alarmists.

They're branded as "Deniers" and ridiculed and bullied into silence or smeared into pariah status. I haven't actually seen evidence for the inverse. Do you have any?

To say "the activists are terrified to enter into genuine dialogue" seems to me to be evidence of the opposite of what you're saying here. Its inviting a debate, not shutting it down. It may not be a particularly nice way to invite debate but it is nonetheless an invitation. A challenge.

The skeptics seem to say "look at this evidence, what do you have to say about this you idiot?" Which is not very nice indeed. But at least it invites a debate.

But the alarmists on the other hand say things like "look at this evidence, now shut up and do what I say because I'm trying to save you, you idiot" Which may be well intentioned, but is also not very nice, and shits down debate.

You don't hear skeptics saying absurd things like "settled science" or the tell-tale signs of trying to shut down debate like appeals to authority "99% of scientists..."

You may not like the style in which the skeptics express themselves, which is fine, but that's different from claiming that they shut down the conversation, that's simply not true. They're the ones opening the conversation.

0 new comment

100 sats \ 2 replies \ @xz 16h

Interesting. I find it hard to disagree for the most part.

.. where it helps to reduce pollution and to keep on working on defensive measures

So, without a concise topic boundary, and if we just took this whole debate generally, I'd say I find truth often lies somewhere in the middle.

To narrow down on the stats and their implications, you'd naturally come to the conclusions that you do, that there's a massive perception problem. Let's just say 'for whatever reasons'.

I guess related to the sentence I quoted above, we could say somethings with a relative degree of certainty, even without specifics. For example.

Pollution. Is it real? Yes. Is it a problem? Quite possibly beyond simple undesirable cosmetic effects. How much of a problem? We're only just beginning to look at how certain materials might pose serious risks for the world and it's inhabitants (not just the occasional picture of a badger or a seal with it's nose stuck in a discarded plastic form.)

So what's the extent of problems and defensive measures?

Well, this is nothing new as even before plastics, for example, people saw the need to build all kinds of defensive measures against all kinds of natural and human threats or byproducts of those threats.

When I look the above dataset, I find it hard to really say much, conclusively, other than from the angle of the snapshot that the data provides. Like, what would you really be looking at if you zoomed out with accurate data on larger, much larger timescales. What would that data look like applied to a hypothetical, or even a real comparative set of data from other planets, galaxies.. possible lifeforms, environments.

It's all very inconclusive IMO. Sure, there are certain assumptions that might be held and considered, valuable data and conclusions, but really, do we know what we're talking about for sure, most f the time?

0 new comment

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @optimism OP 15h

How much of a problem? We're only just beginning to look at how certain materials might pose serious risks for the world and it's inhabitants (not just the occasional picture of a badger or a seal with it's nose stuck in a discarded plastic form.)

Exactly.

It's all very inconclusive IMO

Exactly, and I think that that's a function of polarization too: it only gets more and more fuzzy and actually obstructs not only research but also common-sense action. Every choice is measured against extremes too, and if you dare implementing a middle ground solution, then you upset both ends of the spectrum, and no one likes bad publicity and demonstrators at the gates.

In the end, if we want progress, we need to get real solutions, not pie-in-the-sky narratives.

0 new comment

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @xz 15h

It only gets more and more fuzzy and actually obstructs not only research but also common-sense action

Agree. Recently, I was arguing something opposite when I heard somebody discussing this in a political context rather than scientific or logical. They were saying exactly what you are with regards to middle ground and progress. I guess they had a point there. Extremism on a political scale is equally unhelpful. I was trying to make the case that there are certain times and situations perhaps when you actually might need extreme action and reverse course. I guess I didn't make the case well, and the OP probably thought I was just trying to play devil's advocate.

I was just looking at the term 'fuzzy logic' as I kind of forgot what that pertained to (I have no math background) but thought it quite interesting again.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-fuzzy/

Fuzzy logic and vagueness

Modeling reasoning with vague predicates and propositions is often cited as the main motivation for introducing fuzzy logics. There are many alternative theories of vagueness, but there is a general agreement that the susceptibility to the sorites paradox is a main feature of vagueness. Consider the following version of the paradox: 10100 is a huge number. If n is a huge number, then n−1 is also huge. On the face of it, it seems not to be unreasonable to accept these two assumptions. By instantiating n with 10100 in and applying modus ponens ... we conclude that 10100−1 is huge. By simply repeating this type of inference we arrive at the unreasonable statement 0 is a huge number.