4 ms·

> It is. Really. That was my point, Lisa presented this fact as though it's unique to the report. In this case, it's just background data, because anyone can l

> It is. Really. That was my point, Lisa presented this fact as though it's unique to the report. In this case, it's just background data, because anyone can look at temperature trends and let out a giant DUH when asked if the mean temperatures are rising.

nl 9y ago
Sorry, I have trouble keeping up with which bit is being argued, and your edit[1] has made it read differently now. So you agree climate change is real and significant? Edit: Because plenty do deny that, although I agree they aren't credible. Your initial, unedited reply read just like that. And you are just angry that the NYTimes posted that this report might not be released? Or something? [1] http://imgur.com/a/ozK9R http://imgur.com/a/ozK9R
- microcolonel 9y ago
  > Sorry, I have trouble keeping up with which bit is being argued, and your edit[1] has made it read differently now. Apologies for the bad first draft, maybe it should have been embargoed. ;- ) > And you are just angry that the NYTimes posted that this report might not be released? Or something? I'm unhappy with the tone and tenor of discussions and presentations of climate issues. The part that "97%" of climate scientists agree on is not disputed by the President or his Cabinet. The agreement is basically a) that the global mean temperature has increased dramatically, b) that atmospheric carbon dioxide increase has almost certainly had an effect, and finally c) that humans have sufficiently affected the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide to consider that these emissions account for a measurable portion of the temperature increase. Almost everything else is very much up for debate, and when people present some additional assertions as verified fact, the curious people notice that they're being dishonest, and wonder what else they're being dishonest about. For example, Neil DeGrasse Tyson once quite regularly told people that if the ice caps melt, the water level will be above the elbow of the statue of liberty. As far as I can tell, this does not match the models, it doesn't make sense, and it makes everything these public "science guy" types say utterly suspect. The gripe I was hoping (and failing) to get across was that even a subtle misrepresentation or overstatement can cast doubt on your entire presentation. This, I think, is a common and grave mistake of people who present on issues which appear to divide people. When combined with smugness, any (otherwise factual) presentation can instantly convert mildly curious people into rebels.
  - nl 9y ago
    For example, Neil DeGrasse Tyson once quite regularly told people that if the ice caps melt, the water level will be above the elbow of the statue of liberty. As far as I can tell, this does not match the models, it doesn't make sense, and it makes everything these public "science guy" types say utterly suspect. Not sure what your problem is here. The Statue of Liberty is 90M tall, and if Antarctica and Greenland melt then estimates are that sea level will rise between 60M and 70M. It's unknown how likely the icecap melt is, but plenty of scenarios lead to significant ice-cap break up by 2100.

nl 9y ago

Sorry, I have trouble keeping up with which bit is being argued, and your edit[1] has made it read differently now. So you agree climate change is real and significant? Edit: Because plenty do deny that, although I agree they aren't credible. Your initial, unedited reply read just like that. And you are just angry that the NYTimes posted that this report might not be released? Or something? [1] http://imgur.com/a/ozK9R http://imgur.com/a/ozK9R

microcolonel 9y ago
> Sorry, I have trouble keeping up with which bit is being argued, and your edit[1] has made it read differently now. Apologies for the bad first draft, maybe it should have been embargoed. ;- ) > And you are just angry that the NYTimes posted that this report might not be released? Or something? I'm unhappy with the tone and tenor of discussions and presentations of climate issues. The part that "97%" of climate scientists agree on is not disputed by the President or his Cabinet. The agreement is basically a) that the global mean temperature has increased dramatically, b) that atmospheric carbon dioxide increase has almost certainly had an effect, and finally c) that humans have sufficiently affected the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide to consider that these emissions account for a measurable portion of the temperature increase. Almost everything else is very much up for debate, and when people present some additional assertions as verified fact, the curious people notice that they're being dishonest, and wonder what else they're being dishonest about. For example, Neil DeGrasse Tyson once quite regularly told people that if the ice caps melt, the water level will be above the elbow of the statue of liberty. As far as I can tell, this does not match the models, it doesn't make sense, and it makes everything these public "science guy" types say utterly suspect. The gripe I was hoping (and failing) to get across was that even a subtle misrepresentation or overstatement can cast doubt on your entire presentation. This, I think, is a common and grave mistake of people who present on issues which appear to divide people. When combined with smugness, any (otherwise factual) presentation can instantly convert mildly curious people into rebels.
- nl 9y ago
  For example, Neil DeGrasse Tyson once quite regularly told people that if the ice caps melt, the water level will be above the elbow of the statue of liberty. As far as I can tell, this does not match the models, it doesn't make sense, and it makes everything these public "science guy" types say utterly suspect. Not sure what your problem is here. The Statue of Liberty is 90M tall, and if Antarctica and Greenland melt then estimates are that sea level will rise between 60M and 70M. It's unknown how likely the icecap melt is, but plenty of scenarios lead to significant ice-cap break up by 2100.