…
erm, I think NC needs to consider the science of rising sea levels every bit as much as Brazil needs to consider backing up his assertions with…something.
Clearly, NC does take very seriously the science behind sea level rise. With jack-wagons screaming death and doom, NC is panicking and demanding 3 foot added to their sea walls RIGHT NOW. The gov’t there is short of money after 6 years of recession, so they want to use what little money there is to create jobs. These jobs generate more tax revenue that can be used to add the three feet in, say, 20 years, long before they will be needed. It’s fair to say a category 4 hurricane will make landfall there, and that will wash away all the sea walls. It’s cheaper to rebuild everything destroyed than to build a wall to keep the water out.
Science is science, and it is wrong to use science to whip up public hysteria. That just produces the kind of knee jerk reactions that leads to building nuclear power plants on coastlines that regularly experience 100 foot tsunamis. Sea levels have been rising since the dawn of human written history. The Dutch have been adding to their sea walls for hundreds of years now. We have time to fix this, thanks to researching the living dog shit out of it. We will survive and continue to thrive … I have that much trust in the generations to come.
That was true in the 19th century, but the heliocentric theory of the universe has been completely discredited … [giggle] … Today we use something called … [chorkle] … the galactic theory of the universe … [busts out laughing] … where the “helio” isn’t the center of the universe, it’s not even the center of the galaxy.
Is THIS the basis you rest on claiming Evolution is truth? Well, that just shows, and shows yet again, you only need a D in calculus to become a biologist.
Okay okay okay, I admit I was wrong about defining scientific theory. At least I put it out there, and not sit quivering in fear in some dark corner desperate to never be wrong.
You’re wrong about a lot of things.
Yes, bravo!! Seriously, thanks so much for your courage, spouting complete bullshit unlike all those pathetic sissies who know when to shut up when they don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.
Thank you again for your answer.
With AGW so defined, it is pretty clear that there are not “mountains of evidence” to support it, and in fact there is strong cause for skepticism.
First, even according to the IPCC, warming before 1950 is primarily natural in origin:
Of course those graphs leave out the 19th century but given the history of CO2 emissions, it is reasonable to interpret those graphs as indicating that mankind’s significant contribution to warming did not start until after 1950 or so. I myself am skeptical of the IPCC conclusion, but at a minimum it shows that there are not “mountains of evidence” to support AGW as you have defined it.
Next, the claim that warming over the past 200 years is unprecedented.
I am extremely skeptical of your claim that enough is known about climate over the last 10,000 years to be confident that the rate of warming over the past 200 years is unprecedented and I would ask for cites. If there are mountains of evidence to support AGW, this should not be a problem.
Heck, again if we assume for the sake of argument that the IPCC 4th assessment report was correct, they are showing a rate of warming between 1900 and 1950 due to natural causes which is at least as great as the rate of warming between 1950 and the present.
Last, even the claim that warming from 1950 to the present was due to human causes. As far as I know, this is based on untested computer climate simulations. That’s not “mountains of evidence.”
Lol, let’s put proof aside for them moment. First provide a definition of “AGW” and then we can talk about what is a satisfactory level of proof.
I have no interest in engaging with Try2bcomprehensive by proxy. I asked him a few simple, reasonable questions to pin down his position and he ignored those questions. I prefer not to engage with someone who insists on hiding his position behind a cloak of ambiguity.
Wow, for someone who’s been gone for some six years, you don’t seem to have a lot to say on your return, do ya?
He’s moved to Colorado now.
Well, we know who’s hiding in that dark corner … anymore pathetic sissies want to speak up?
I would have to agree with you to a large extent. He seems to be equating a reasonable request for a definition with a demand for proof with mathematical certainty.
That goes beyond sloppy thinking and into the world of emotion-driven delusion.
They used the force of law to prevent acting now to prevent a future threat, that isn’t supported by science. If sea level rise was accelerating, as AGW theory predicted, as it must do, then they would be idiots. But it hasn’t. Now if it was speeding up, and then they refused to deal with it, they actually would be short sighted and stupid. But most politicians seem that way already to me.
It’s even worse than that, there are signs of a complete breakdown of the theoretical predictions from rising GhGs, which is really strange.
And while you are at it, can you provide the names of the sci3ntists credited with the theory? That would be great.
At some point, maybe, there will actually come a time when somebody will have to state, with certainty, what would constitute proof of the theory.
The problem with that line of reasoning, is that point already came and went. It’s why you don’t usually hear much about “warming boreal winters”, supported by graphs of the winter trends.
And you certainly don’t see long term graphs of winter temperatures for locations.
Please check the NAS final report and other documents in the same site for details.
Like it has been pointed out many times now, rather than just answer direct questions, the warmer evades, or posts links to some long document, rather than have a conversation. A discussion forum isn’t a bunch of links with some idiot telling you “the answers are there”. That’s evasive bullshit.
It’s a discussion forum. What’s your take on it? What do you think? What do you say (or agree on) about the CO2 theory? What do you mean when you say “global warming”?
These are not difficult questions. Why does the warmer evade them?
Since these are “not difficult questions,” then you should be able to answer them yourself easily. But since you keep asking them, then I can only guess that they are difficult questions for you. In which case, consider visiting websites that have pages discussing climate change (such as those in NASA, which you mentioned earlier) and read up on the matter. If that is not enough, then a textbook about climate change should provide more details. Finally, for updated views on the matter that use multiple data sets, try the NAS final report. If you prefer something funded by skeptics, try BEST. Keep in mind, though, that both have the same conclusions about the matter.
Usually yes, but MrDibble does deserve credit for providing a reasonably precise definition of “AGW.” Unfortunately for him, the evidence does not appear to support AGW as he has defined it.
I do agree that most warmers tend to evade or even lash out when asked simple, reasonable questions about their position.
I think a lot of warmers, perhaps most, don’t really understand the theory in which they so fervently belief. What they do know is that good people believe in “global warming” and bad people don’t. Those that have slightly better understanding realize subconsciously that they are on the horns of a dilemma. If they spell out their position, either the evidence won’t support it, or their position will end up being so mild that they are basically on the side of the skeptics.
“all those pathetic sissies who know when to shut up when they don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about”
Anyone actually reading the topic knows I have answered all of them. Twice now.
But it’s not only that. When I spell it out, clearly and in a scientific manner, it’s like they can’t see it. I suspect since they don’t actually know the answers, they are afraid of either agreeing or arguing with my points, because they might be wrong. And since they don’t actually understand the theory or the science, they just keep quiet and ignore it. I think they actually believe I don’t notice their lack of response as well.
I think it’s far worse than that.