What? I've never said that climate change doesn't exacerbate substance abuse in this subset of the population. It's how climate change affects the rest of the world's population's susceptibility to substance abuse that is unknown. I also never mentioned poverty. You seem to want to keep "disproving" arguments I never made. It's pointless to keep going, so let's just agree to disagree.
As long as every relationship has been characterized in separate and you can't argue how this magically stops being valid when the relationships are simply together this is not a valid argument.
The reasons you have tried to use have been easily debunked (like thinking poverty would mean less substance abuse) that is why you no longer try to use examples to support the invalid reasoning, there are none.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Where? They've been characterized for, at best, a subset of a subset of a subset of the global population: those vulnerable to substance abuse because they are vulnerable to mental health conditions caused by their vulnerability to a subset of climate change impacts.
The relationships have already been proved beyond any reasonable doubt, the only thing this article is doing is putting all the relationships together so the very high risk of this specific consequence is clearly exposed, pretending the relationships are yet to be characterized is simply mistaken.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
It depends on the strength of the relationships, and the accuracy at which the relationship can be measured. You and the author may be overestimating both, and I want to see if it's the case.
Not only relationship but a causal relationship, A causes B and B causes C, therefore there is nothing illogical in concluding A will cause C, the irrational argument that A could prevent C is what is not supported by the evidence and instead contradicted by it. Without presenting a realistic scenario where the logical causal relationship is broken you have no argument, and the options you have brought as examples have been very easily disproved.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
You're contradicting yourself, expecting this article to be universally inclusive, and the IPCC report (which is thousands of pages long) not to be. You're also making up arguments I've never made.
Look, we have a fundamental difference of opinion. You're willing to accept a claim that there's a significant relationship between A and D because A is (usually) related to B, and B is (sometimes) related to C, and C is (sometimes) related to D. I'm not, because I'm concerned about the potential introduction of biases and errors at each stage (every relationship has its caveats). I want to see a direct link between A and D shown by the data. This isn't like theoretical physics, where we have to rely on indirect relationships to make a conclusion because the phenomenon we want to measure can't be directly measured.
No, that is not part of the assumption, the article that apparently you have still not read clearly list the impacts that would be related to poorer mental health levels and therefore to drug abuse. As long as they are present that is enough to justify the explanation. Unless of course your new argument is that these deeply negative consequences are less important than the much more limited opposite ones, this would mean you are now arguing climate change is not a problem and it is even desirable, which at this point becomes a deeply antiscientific position based on denialism.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
You are assuming that all climate change impacts are negative, and that all negative impacts lead to higher substance abuse.
Yes, climate change impacts are mostly negative, but not entirely (e.g., milder and shorter winters, longer growing seasons in cold regions). You're also not considering that mental health isn't the only thing affected by negative impacts of climate change. For example, some could reduce people's disposable incomes available for buying alcohol or drugs. Again, I'm playing devil's advocate and basically agree that the author's claim is plausible (just not tested).
The latest IPCC WG2 report's Summary for Policymakers doesn't even mention the impacts of climate change on substance abuse, and the full report only mentions a relationship for certain populations. Let's not jump ahead of the science.
When every example available results in the same consequence the generalization is valid, your argument depends completely in demonstrating disasters somehow reduce substance abuse, no examples means you have not refuted the validity of the generalization.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
Bangladesh and Indonesia aren't middle eastern countries. :)
My point is, although it's unlikely, there are factors that could invalidate this hypothesis, so we can't make such a big assumption easily. I'm obviously playing devil's advocate here, but I'm an environment scientist, and I always want to see claims that are based on the data.
Not every article is going to be targeted at a middle east leadership.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
I didn't say that. I'm saying, at the global scale, it's more complex than that due to regional variations in climate change impacts (some of which may potentially lessen susceptibility to substance abuse(?)) and variations in people's susceptibility to substance abuse (which is also affected by socioeconomic factors and government policies). The relationship in Bangladesh, Indonesia, or other Muslim countries, for example, may be weak or nonexistent. My point is, if you want to make a global generalization like this, your hypothesis should be well tested before putting it out there in case you're missing something that's not immediately obvious.
So you actually think it is necessary data to prove people losing everything to disasters are more likely to develop mental health problems and substance abuse? sorry but that is beyond believable.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
I trust claims backed by data. I don't see any here, which is why I'm not convinced. You can't publish a research article in climate science based only on a theory (unless it's some kind of world changing one, I guess).
For example, if climate change impacts exacerbate substance abuse in areas with generally low substance abuse (or low population densities) but reduce it in areas with generally high substance abuse/high population densities (due to, e.g., milder winters in Northern latitudes), there may be no net increase in substance abuse globally.
My point is, it should not be so difficult to model the relationship between climate changes and changes in rates of substance abuse. It will likely vary by region.
Again, what evidence do you think is necessary to think people involved in the problems proved to come from climate change would be affected by mental health problems? Do you actually think losing your health, way of making a living and family members is something usually taken as unimportant?
0 ( +2 / -2 )
That isn't the argument. The argument is climate change will cause increased substance abuse. It should not be difficult to provide evidence of this if true. I'm not saying the theory is wrong, only that the author hasn't provided evidence here.
Theories are not "just" there, a theory is an explanation. What evidence do you think is necessary for the explanation that mental health problems increase when disasters become more frequent and deadly? or with damaged infrastructure and loss of agricultural products? the reasons listed are obviously related to the mental health of populations and are being affected by climate change. So, what arguments do you have to say this is not the case and the article needs to provide evidence of these effects on mental health?
0 ( +2 / -2 )
This article is not very convincing, even to someone who is concerned about climate change. No evidence given (from what I could see); just theories. I feel these kinds of articles can do more harm than good by causing people to doubt the claims that are actually backed up by evidence.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
Keep in mind that this is taking place in Dubai. Some posters here are more scared of progress on climate change than the government of Dubai, lol.
0 ( +4 / -4 )
Who's "they"? At COP, each country is sharing their own plans and actions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Yes it sounds pretty vile right? Nobody is forced (or forcing you) to do anything.
Of course while they want the plebs to eat insects and stuff like that, it’s vile and hypocritical
3 ( +5 / -2 )
Minakami is like lots of onsen towns. As the buildings in the center of the town (usually around the train station) become old and basically abandoned, new hotels keep getting built in the mountains a bit further outside the town. The sad thing is the town centers are not very interesting; people go there for the views and nature. Minakami is still a popular tourist destination.
More “build it and they will come” logic. Throwing money at these kinds of problems doesn’t work. History has proven that over and over again.
5 ( +6 / -1 )
Yes, both sides are driven by hate (and religion) and committing atrocities.
We can condemn Hamas but we must then condemn Israel for its disproportionate response where tens of thousands of Palestinian children have died under the rubble of their homes, bombed by the IDF.
There are no good actors in this horror movie.
4 ( +6 / -2 )
From the picture, it looks like Dear Leader just told a joke, and his supporters are slowly realizing they were supposed to laugh at it.
5 ( +5 / -0 )
What's with the cranberry hate? I guess it's people buying the canned jelly-like stuff.
0 ( +4 / -4 )
??? Can't people choose which experiences they want to... experience? Not everyone wants to eat whale meat, etc.
Yes, if you come to Japan and do not want the experience, why come?
7 ( +14 / -7 )
You all aren't getting it. For many countries including Japan, solar will be much cheaper than any other power sources by 2050. Even if we all forget about trying to stop climate change, solar will still dominate the future energy mix.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
This is genius!
-1 ( +3 / -4 )
Lol. You've thought this from the start. I don't think the "we" group is getting any larger except in your imagination.
And everyone thought NATO fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian was sarcasm...... We all didn't know how dark NATO really is. They are truly the successors of the Third Reich.
-5 ( +4 / -9 )
Yes, it's a commercial event, but how is it stealing?
Christmas became pure commercial event-at least in Japan.
a pathetic way to steal money from peoples pockets.
7 ( +8 / -1 )
C'mon there must have been some checks to ensure safety before planning this railway. Honorable Mayor probably wants something.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
Nintendo Switch is how old now? And still going strong! I guess making fun games is enough for many people, even if the specs aren't as good as other consoles.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
I think you're projecting a bit here. Many people don't want to name their kids after tons of people they already know. It's one reason why names go in and out of fashion.
These new generation, Japan has boys names which sound very gay and girl names as teen idols.
What happened to manly names Japan used to have? Such as Tetsuo, Takashi, Kenji, Shintaro, Tomokazu, Shini'ichi, and girls names as Mitsuko, Keiko, Sayuri, Akina, Miyoko etc.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
Did you read the article? There's a direct Putin quote: "The events in Makhachkala last night were inspired also through social networks, not least from the territory of Ukraine, by the hands of agents of Western special services."
Need to try a bit harder than that mate.
No quote from Putin in this article.
Feeling played yet?
6 ( +11 / -5 )
Lol, done again? You've been predicting this for the last year at least. If we are to believe you, by now the entire West must be out of money and weapons, and Ukraine must have a negative population of adult males.
Oh wait, this time it's "for good". Sorry!
UA IS DONE.
few drones cant change result which is bad for heroi.
Russia will prevail.Kiev junta without money from abroad will have options-or to finally start to to talk about peace with Russia or runaway as fast as they can.
-1 ( +5 / -6 )
Blah blah blah. Time to take your own advice mate
Blah blah blah, time to change the record, this constant banging on becomes tiresome to me. I’m just getting on with my life and having a fun time. I’ve always been eco friendly ( never driven you see) and buy and shop locally as much as possible
5 ( +7 / -2 )
Of course Israel is committing war crimes. Now, by the same logic, you should point a finger at Russia's leaders for committing war crimes. Can you admit it? We're all waiting..
The rate of civilian losses in Palestine is orders of magnitude higher than that of civilians in Ukraine.
The total civilian deaths in Palestine will soon surpass those in Ukraine, despite the fact that the conflict in Ukraine has been raging for much longer.
Whomever accused Russia of war crimes should point the same finger at Israel otherwise they are exposed as disingenuous, hypocritical and dishonest.
-9 ( +6 / -15 )
I'm sure ordinary Russians are happy to pay for them. 1/3 of their national budget is being wasted on these toys and the poor soldiers being forced to support their Alleged War Criminal President.
Satellite images show the Russian military lost at least 109 military vehicles, mostly armored fighting vehicles and tanks, near Avdiivika between Oct. 10 and 20, the institute said.
4 ( +7 / -3 )