4 ms·

It's not real. It's real but it's not caused by us. It's caused by us but the water does not rise. The water does rise but that's actually good. etc.

mirimir 9y ago
Well, one could bet in futures markets that coastal cities will flood, and so on.
- tdfx 9y ago
  Is there actually a viable way to currently do this?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - cloudwalking 9y ago
    Buy land at 50 ft. elevation? I only half kid.
    - taneq 9y ago
      I checked the elevation last time I bought a house. I'm not even kidding. 63' above sea level, worst comes to worst I'll have a beachfront property to sell when I want to buy my houseboat.
      - cloudwalking 9y ago
        Yes I did as well. One of my requirements in shopping for a house was >50 feet above sea level. It won't matter in the short run but it definitely will matter in the long run. Unfortunately if the sea rises 20 feet, I will still have a house but my whole area will be a lot less lucrative...
blank_2 9y ago
Well it could be real depending on whose definition we're going by. I remember a teacher in school giving us pictures of skyscrapers buried in water. Is that realistic? As for the cause, there is bound to be disagreement when you try to reduce it down to a single factor. If the waters aren't muddied enough by these oversimplifications, along come the thought police to tell us that racism is to blame. It's not hard to see why people think this discourse is a cover for something else.
- Oletros 9y ago
  > If the waters aren't muddied enough by these oversimplifications, I didn't knew that papers were oversimplified, because you're talking about science, not the media, isn't?
blank_2 9y ago
We believe in freedom of expression, but let's censor/threaten whoever disagrees with us, because their opinions are harmful. We believe in gaining a consensus, but you'd better believe what we say or else.
- mirimir 9y ago
  Based on what hasn't happened in recent decades, I'd say that climate-change deniers have won. So it goes.
  - blank_2 9y ago
    If they have won, they have only won because the game has been given to them. It's clear to see that a lot of their arguments are just reactionary, as Florin_Andrei pointed out.
- yongjik 9y ago
  Mouseover text of https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/ : > I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.
  - blank_2 9y ago
    I think you're missing the point. I am not defending a position. I was merely pointing out the irony in trying to force a consensus. Also, there is a difference between thinking that people speaking freely is good for a society's health, and trying to win a legal/ego battle. If people can't handle a relatively neutral discussion about such things, then they might as well say so up front. I can understand if people have run out of patience, but it's far from being one-sided.

mirimir 9y ago

Well, one could bet in futures markets that coastal cities will flood, and so on.

tdfx 9y ago
Is there actually a viable way to currently do this?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- cloudwalking 9y ago
  Buy land at 50 ft. elevation? I only half kid.
  - taneq 9y ago
    I checked the elevation last time I bought a house. I'm not even kidding. 63' above sea level, worst comes to worst I'll have a beachfront property to sell when I want to buy my houseboat.
    - cloudwalking 9y ago
      Yes I did as well. One of my requirements in shopping for a house was >50 feet above sea level. It won't matter in the short run but it definitely will matter in the long run. Unfortunately if the sea rises 20 feet, I will still have a house but my whole area will be a lot less lucrative...

blank_2 9y ago

Well it could be real depending on whose definition we're going by. I remember a teacher in school giving us pictures of skyscrapers buried in water. Is that realistic? As for the cause, there is bound to be disagreement when you try to reduce it down to a single factor. If the waters aren't muddied enough by these oversimplifications, along come the thought police to tell us that racism is to blame. It's not hard to see why people think this discourse is a cover for something else.

Oletros 9y ago
> If the waters aren't muddied enough by these oversimplifications, I didn't knew that papers were oversimplified, because you're talking about science, not the media, isn't?

blank_2 9y ago

We believe in freedom of expression, but let's censor/threaten whoever disagrees with us, because their opinions are harmful. We believe in gaining a consensus, but you'd better believe what we say or else.

mirimir 9y ago
Based on what hasn't happened in recent decades, I'd say that climate-change deniers have won. So it goes.
- blank_2 9y ago
  If they have won, they have only won because the game has been given to them. It's clear to see that a lot of their arguments are just reactionary, as Florin_Andrei pointed out.
yongjik 9y ago
Mouseover text of https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/ : > I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.
- blank_2 9y ago
  I think you're missing the point. I am not defending a position. I was merely pointing out the irony in trying to force a consensus. Also, there is a difference between thinking that people speaking freely is good for a society's health, and trying to win a legal/ego battle. If people can't handle a relatively neutral discussion about such things, then they might as well say so up front. I can understand if people have run out of patience, but it's far from being one-sided.