5 ms·

Climate Change = Fear-mongering. Remember 15 years ago the way people were predicting foot to meter per year seawater rise? It's a miracle the Empire State Buil

by okyup 11y ago

Climate Change = Fear-mongering. Remember 15 years ago the way people were predicting foot to meter per year seawater rise? It's a miracle the Empire State Building isn't underwater already as some predicted. There's been no global warming for over a decade. All of those models used to predict disasters that never happened turned out inaccurate and wrong. But that doesn't stop corrupt organizations who have perverted "science" from continuing to use these "theories" for their political ends. Ocean levels have been rising for thousands of years and will continue to do so until the next ice age (barring human intervention to prevent it from occurring - might be a good thing?), so NASA would be wise to use technologies such as levies to prevent flooding of their facilities. They might've been even smarter to build them at higher elevation to begin with.

fritzer_pitzer 11y ago
I don't think the scientific consensus was ever for that much sea level rise during the last few decades. The fact is that greenhouse gases are undeniably increasing the earths temperature and this is destabilizing the major ice sheets. Exactly how fast these ice sheets will melt is uncertain but there is no doubt that the rate of their melting is accelerating.
dalke 11y ago
> Remember 15 years ago the way people were predicting foot to meter per year seawater rise? What you suggest was far from a generally accepted prediction. The IPCC's 2001 report was for <1 meter rise over the entire century. See http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/429.htm#1151 http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climat... . It emphatically was NOT a "foot to meter per year seawater rise." Do you have evidence that it wasn't just kooks saying what you suggested? > "as some predicted" Who predicted that? Some guest on Coast to Coast AM who also thinks alien UFOs create chemtrails? > use technologies such as levies to prevent flooding As brought up several times in this thread, levies won't work at KCS. Water would simply go through the porous rock under any such levy. If these statements of your are false, or at best straw man arguments, why should anyone believe the rest of what you write?
- mseebach 11y ago
  There's a lot of motte/bailey'ing[1] going on in the climate change debate. There is tons of histrionics and scare mongering out there. I particular remember during the COP15 meeting in Copenhagen, art installations illustrating how the city would be under water if sea level rose 7 meters, which is the estimated rise if all of the ice on Greenland melts. The Day After Tomorrow, not to mention An Inconvenient Truth. While there certainly are and were voices critical of these things and their dubious relationship with the science (whether settled or consensus or not), their usefulness in advancing the agenda appears to be appreciated more than their role in misrepresenting the science. This is an actual quote from a scientist listed in the "criticism" section of the "The Day After Tomorrow" Wikipedia page[2]: "I'm heartened that there's a movie addressing real climate issues. But as for the science of the movie, I'd give it a D minus or an F. And I'd be concerned if the movie was made to advance a political agenda.". This is an actual scientist on the record believing that TDAT is "addressing real climate issues". That is like applauding Swordfish[3] for addressing cyber security issues. That is the Bailey. Then, years after, when these things perhaps look a bit more absurd (and some very specific predictions turned out not to come through, at least not as unambiguously as expected), we get "The IPCC's 2001 report was for <1 meter rise over the entire century ... Do you have evidence that it wasn't just kooks saying what you suggested?" That's the Motte. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If it was only kooks saying it, certainly none of the non-kooks bothered throughly rebutting them at the time. 1:http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/09/motte-and-bailey-doctrines/ http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/09/motte-and-baile... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After_Tomorrow#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After_Tomorrow#Critici... 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swordfish_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swordfish_(film)
  - mikeash 11y ago
    I can't understand what you're getting at with The Day After Tomorrow. The scientist is basically saying "WTF this sucks, what were they thinking?" but more nicely. Have you ever seen someone express a position that you agree with, but do it so badly that you wish they hadn't, because they make you uncomfortable and just give ammunition to your opponents, while convincing nobody of the merits of your position? And then you try to formulate some sort of response to say, well, you're right, but oh how I wish you hadn't made your case so badly? That's basically this.
Oletros 11y ago
> Remember 15 years ago the way people were predicting foot to meter per year seawater rise? No, I don't remember that. Can you provide some links for those predictions done 15 years ago?

by okyup 11y ago

fritzer_pitzer 11y ago

I don't think the scientific consensus was ever for that much sea level rise during the last few decades. The fact is that greenhouse gases are undeniably increasing the earths temperature and this is destabilizing the major ice sheets. Exactly how fast these ice sheets will melt is uncertain but there is no doubt that the rate of their melting is accelerating.

dalke 11y ago

> Remember 15 years ago the way people were predicting foot to meter per year seawater rise? What you suggest was far from a generally accepted prediction. The IPCC's 2001 report was for <1 meter rise over the entire century. See http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/429.htm#1151 http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climat... . It emphatically was NOT a "foot to meter per year seawater rise." Do you have evidence that it wasn't just kooks saying what you suggested? > "as some predicted" Who predicted that? Some guest on Coast to Coast AM who also thinks alien UFOs create chemtrails? > use technologies such as levies to prevent flooding As brought up several times in this thread, levies won't work at KCS. Water would simply go through the porous rock under any such levy. If these statements of your are false, or at best straw man arguments, why should anyone believe the rest of what you write?

mseebach 11y ago
There's a lot of motte/bailey'ing[1] going on in the climate change debate. There is tons of histrionics and scare mongering out there. I particular remember during the COP15 meeting in Copenhagen, art installations illustrating how the city would be under water if sea level rose 7 meters, which is the estimated rise if all of the ice on Greenland melts. The Day After Tomorrow, not to mention An Inconvenient Truth. While there certainly are and were voices critical of these things and their dubious relationship with the science (whether settled or consensus or not), their usefulness in advancing the agenda appears to be appreciated more than their role in misrepresenting the science. This is an actual quote from a scientist listed in the "criticism" section of the "The Day After Tomorrow" Wikipedia page[2]: "I'm heartened that there's a movie addressing real climate issues. But as for the science of the movie, I'd give it a D minus or an F. And I'd be concerned if the movie was made to advance a political agenda.". This is an actual scientist on the record believing that TDAT is "addressing real climate issues". That is like applauding Swordfish[3] for addressing cyber security issues. That is the Bailey. Then, years after, when these things perhaps look a bit more absurd (and some very specific predictions turned out not to come through, at least not as unambiguously as expected), we get "The IPCC's 2001 report was for <1 meter rise over the entire century ... Do you have evidence that it wasn't just kooks saying what you suggested?" That's the Motte. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If it was only kooks saying it, certainly none of the non-kooks bothered throughly rebutting them at the time. 1:http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/09/motte-and-bailey-doctrines/ http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/09/motte-and-baile... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After_Tomorrow#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After_Tomorrow#Critici... 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swordfish_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swordfish_(film)
- mikeash 11y ago
  I can't understand what you're getting at with The Day After Tomorrow. The scientist is basically saying "WTF this sucks, what were they thinking?" but more nicely. Have you ever seen someone express a position that you agree with, but do it so badly that you wish they hadn't, because they make you uncomfortable and just give ammunition to your opponents, while convincing nobody of the merits of your position? And then you try to formulate some sort of response to say, well, you're right, but oh how I wish you hadn't made your case so badly? That's basically this.

Oletros 11y ago

> Remember 15 years ago the way people were predicting foot to meter per year seawater rise? No, I don't remember that. Can you provide some links for those predictions done 15 years ago?