As citizens of the largest industrial nation whose president not only doesn't believe in climate change, but is even working actively to bury it: You don't get condolences, you get to apologize to the rest of the world and realize that you too need to work on fixing this.
That said, no, because these people are in extraordinary circumstances and don't have time to calmly sit down and think things through rationally. (Comparing storm flood victims with people who're a bit warm is a bit silly.)
The person who's a bit warm does not deserve nor need condolences, instead they and the person tempted to send the condolences should see it as a wake-up call.
The storm flood victim doesn't need a wake-up call. They had theirs. And they probably also don't care about "thoughts and prayers" when their very life is at stake. They're not in a soccer match where the audience cheering actually does anything for them.
A better way to do it would be to point to this as an example of a possible climate change, otherwise both sides become even more entrenched in their beliefs.
Can you substantiate why you think there are people here who need convincing, as opposed to reminding?
(Also, quite frankly, you seem to write as if you yourself think 'it is only a theory' instead of it being cruelly real and deadly fact. Is this the case?)
Say I did believe that climate change was a hoax. What then? Should I be excluded from the community? Should it be used to question my decisions, destroy my career, hound me for it? Should it follow me around?
I don't believe that, but your logic taken to its conclusion doesn't paint a pretty picture for the world. I wouldn't want people to behave like that to each other. Being able to disagree is a fundamental right, necessary for discourse and debate to work at all. If you vilify a position you lose the benefits of this.
You're a nice person and try to be nice, but i will not acceed to giving the HN userbase that kind of coddling, because the people posting here are not average. Not about an issue of life death for the entire human race. You care about someone feeling sad. I care about whether children 2-3 generations down the line from now get to die a natural death. Do you think the former is more important than the latter?
I think it's very far from obvious that children 2-3 generations from now will die horribly due to climate change. It's clear that it's a real phenomenon, but the impact remains to be seen. People have also been predicting doomsday scenarios roughly since people were people, yet the planet finds a way around them and life goes on.
It's not really about being nice. It's more like, if there were evidence that climate change will absolutely lead to large-scale death and destruction, then it wouldn't be necessary to make it a moral imperative to care about it. As it stands, it's very hard to prove that it will. And without proof, the idea that people should be shamed for being skeptical doesn't really add up.
I have nothing left to say to you then that i haven't said above.
1. Those without the prerequisites and means to access on education. (Think people with no internet.)
2. Those who are willing to consider the horror of this directly, if reminded of it.
3. Those who do not want to it to be real and refuse to educate themselves on their own accord because it would mean confronting a literal existential horror.
You're 3. as evidenced by the fact that you ask me for evidence when you could just google, and find pages like this immediately: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
I couldn't find evidence that this is true. Can you point me to that requirement?
This must be a recent change since I grew up in Florida in a house w/o air conditioning. (Easier in a Florida cracker style home than one designed around A/C.) My Dad would have been pissed if there were the law 20 years ago. Of course, even if we had A/C he wouldn't use it - the house was only slightly more insulated than a tent.
There is a Florida law which says landlords must provide heat during winter. From http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/Chapter83/All :
> Unless otherwise agreed in writing, in addition to the requirements of subsection (1), the landlord of a dwelling unit other than a single-family home or duplex shall, at all times during the tenancy, make reasonable provisions for ... Functioning facilities for heat during winter, running water, and hot water.
In any case, this only applies towards rental properties.
I wonder if the FL law gives more leeway to the renter to have the air-conditioner fixed and to take the money off the rent in that case. Wasn't easy to find that in the law.
"Effectively the same" is true. Though I did once rent a garage apartment in north Florida for the summer which had no A/C. The water to the place went under the driveway. I measured the cold water coming out of the kitchen faucet at 95F.
I spent a lot of afternoons at work that summer.