4 ms·

That sounds like a perfect match for a meta study do you have any? I am very dubious about your conclusion. I am basing this on work I did in high school on thi

by pastage 7mo ago

That sounds like a perfect match for a meta study do you have any? I am very dubious about your conclusion. I am basing this on work I did in high school on this so I really have no sources for my claim. EDIT did some more searching and have not been able to finding anything supporting you claim. People have not been very alarmist about sea levels.. 7500m by the year 2500 in Waterworld does not count.

Zetaphor 7mo ago
People wouldn't just lie on the internet!
vel0city 7mo ago
In fact I remember reading the opposite recently, that IPCC sea level rise predictions from the 90s were actually pretty accurate given the limitations of the models at the time. And that a good bit of the error was underestimations of rise, not overestimations. > Here we show that the mid-range projection from the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC (1995/1996) was strikingly close to what transpired over the next 30 years, with the magnitude of sea-level rise underestimated by only ∼1 cm. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025ef006533 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025ef00...
gosub100 7mo ago
The far left is all in on climate change so they suppress anything that contradicts the narrative. You think Nature is going to publish "oops we were wrong about" stories wrt climate change? Each side has dug their heels in. I believe people have influenced the climate, but the far left is using it as a political football to get Their Guy elected, not to actually stop it. The idea of a rising sea is a perfect disaster they can sell you the solution for. If they actually cared, 1) the Democrats would be fighting AI tooth and nail, unless it was 100% powered by renewables (not nuclear, remember their version of science denialism is no nukes.). 2) they would be worshipping Elon for bringing us EVs. Instead they take all that silicon valley AI money and tell us to save the ocean. No way San Jose!
- JoeAltmaier 7mo ago
  That argument seems to be applicable to either party. And I'm not sure we want to put our heads in the sand and say La-La-La, against the real possibility that everything is actually going to shit.
  - gosub100 7mo ago
    I'm not going to ride a bike to save CO2 when AI is allowed to build a whole datacenter. And yes the misinformation and dogma is used by both parties. And I am not a Trump supporter, I think he's an abhorrent human. But I think the environmental argument is propaganda. Trying to get us to sign away our rights but not doing anything that affects the rich (e.g. ban gas stoves but not private jets).
    - alsetmusic 7mo ago
      > I'm not going to ride a bike to save CO2 when AI is allowed to build a whole datacenter. "The people with the most power and money are hurting the planet, so there's no reason for me to inconvenience myself for the sake of others." It's a pretty weak justification for a selfish attitude.
    - ZeroGravitas 7mo ago
      You've gone from hating the far left for trying to push their agenda via global warming to hating the Democrats for not targeting the rich to solve climate change within the span of two comments. Perhaps you have cognitive dissonance because you've fallen for some very low quality propaganda.
      - gosub100 7mo ago
        I haven't "gone from" anything. I pointed out it's "regulations for thee but not for me". If the party cared about climate change, their actions would look much different. But instead they claim disasters (that have occurred for millennia) are caused by CC, then make it right by banning and regulating things as if it will prevent, say, a hurricane. That's akin to self pleasure, or religious dogma (you are "saved" if you give your life to Christ/drive an EV and recycle).

by pastage 7mo ago

Zetaphor 7mo ago

People wouldn't just lie on the internet!

vel0city 7mo ago

In fact I remember reading the opposite recently, that IPCC sea level rise predictions from the 90s were actually pretty accurate given the limitations of the models at the time. And that a good bit of the error was underestimations of rise, not overestimations. > Here we show that the mid-range projection from the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC (1995/1996) was strikingly close to what transpired over the next 30 years, with the magnitude of sea-level rise underestimated by only ∼1 cm. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025ef006533 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025ef00...

gosub100 7mo ago

The far left is all in on climate change so they suppress anything that contradicts the narrative. You think Nature is going to publish "oops we were wrong about" stories wrt climate change? Each side has dug their heels in. I believe people have influenced the climate, but the far left is using it as a political football to get Their Guy elected, not to actually stop it. The idea of a rising sea is a perfect disaster they can sell you the solution for. If they actually cared, 1) the Democrats would be fighting AI tooth and nail, unless it was 100% powered by renewables (not nuclear, remember their version of science denialism is no nukes.). 2) they would be worshipping Elon for bringing us EVs. Instead they take all that silicon valley AI money and tell us to save the ocean. No way San Jose!

JoeAltmaier 7mo ago
That argument seems to be applicable to either party. And I'm not sure we want to put our heads in the sand and say La-La-La, against the real possibility that everything is actually going to shit.
- gosub100 7mo ago
  I'm not going to ride a bike to save CO2 when AI is allowed to build a whole datacenter. And yes the misinformation and dogma is used by both parties. And I am not a Trump supporter, I think he's an abhorrent human. But I think the environmental argument is propaganda. Trying to get us to sign away our rights but not doing anything that affects the rich (e.g. ban gas stoves but not private jets).
  - alsetmusic 7mo ago
    > I'm not going to ride a bike to save CO2 when AI is allowed to build a whole datacenter. "The people with the most power and money are hurting the planet, so there's no reason for me to inconvenience myself for the sake of others." It's a pretty weak justification for a selfish attitude.
  - ZeroGravitas 7mo ago
    You've gone from hating the far left for trying to push their agenda via global warming to hating the Democrats for not targeting the rich to solve climate change within the span of two comments. Perhaps you have cognitive dissonance because you've fallen for some very low quality propaganda.
    - gosub100 7mo ago
      I haven't "gone from" anything. I pointed out it's "regulations for thee but not for me". If the party cared about climate change, their actions would look much different. But instead they claim disasters (that have occurred for millennia) are caused by CC, then make it right by banning and regulating things as if it will prevent, say, a hurricane. That's akin to self pleasure, or religious dogma (you are "saved" if you give your life to Christ/drive an EV and recycle).