Yep.
The Obama White House's blog vs. the IPCC.
Blog v Science Round 2803
Yep.
The Obama White House's blog vs. the IPCC.
Here, Fuzzy; maybe it wasn't big enough for you...
“This 13 agency report shows Southern
Florida disappearing, with the
Everglades, Florida Keys and parts of
Cape Canaveral under water.”
Other greatest hits from Yoni's blog
Obama's Coalition of the Enraged
Shredding the Cons ution
Balance the budget by 2039? Wanna bet?
The Answer Really Isn't Blowing in the Wind
Obama's Smart Diplomacy Disaster
Way to choose a scource that is not mindlessly partisan politics!
You've obviously missed the point of the post. Hopefully, Manny and Random haven't.
The American Thinker blog post isn't about the science of AGCC; it's about the misinformation on AGCC being spread by those who ostensibly agree with yours and Manny's and Random's point of view.
Manny LOL'd at that Lutz character for suggesting the IPCC predicted the Florida Keys would be under water.
I merely pointed out Lutz could have honestly come by the impression from watching ABC News or by watching the Obama administration's streamed release of a report that didn't actually say that but was said in the speech, during the release, and shown in a PowerPoint presentation shown during the speech.
So, it's not exactly fair to ridicule Lutz for merely taking this administration at its word, is it?
The actual source I'm talking about is WhiteHouse.gov; I only got there through the American Thinker blog that pointed out the curious misrepresentation.
So, don't go to The American Thinker. Go to the WhiteHouse.gov website, watch the speech, download and view the PowerPoint presentation. While I can't vouch for it being said in the speech, I have no reason to doubt it was said because, I did see it in the PowerPoint presentation.
The administration's report claimed -- in a visual in the PowerPoint presentation -- that the Florida Keys would be underwater.
Footnote 103.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Pu...ience_2007.pdf
Duh.
This is what the climate scientist is saying.
Of course, he has no evidence of this, and is just making it up for more research money.Regarding the lowest plausible limit to sealevel
rise, a possible assumption may be that the
rate shown in Fig. 3 stops increasing within a few
years (although it is difficult to see a physical
reason for this) and settles at a constant value of
3.5 mm/year. This implies a sea-level rise of 38
cm from 1990 to 2100. Any lower value would
require that the rate of sea-level rise drops despite
rising temperature, reversing the relationship
found in Fig. 2.
Although a full physical understanding of
sea-level rise is lacking, the uncertainty in future
sea-level rise is probably larger than previously
estimated. A rise of over 1 m by 2100 for strong
warming scenarios cannot be ruled out, because
all that such a rise would require is that the linear
relation of the rate of sea-level rise and temperature,
which was found to be valid in the 20th
century, remains valid in the 21st century. On the
other hand, very low sea-level rise values as
reported in the IPCC TAR now appear rather
implausible in the light of the observational data.
So we can dismiss it out of hand, right?
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-ridicule.htmlFallacy: Appeal to Ridicule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.
Description of Appeal to Ridicule
The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is subs uted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:
X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
Therefore claim C is false.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: "1+1=2! That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"
Once again, skeptics of AGCC have clearly demonstrated illogical thinking.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-18-2012 at 03:17 PM.
It should be noted:
Sinking land + rising water = larger relative sea level, depending on locale.Areas
where coastal land is sinking, for example
by as much as 1.5 feet in this century
along portions of the Gulf Coast, would
experience that much additional sea-level
rise relative to the land.^128
Once again, when one drills down into "skeptics" claims, they don't tend to be either logical, or based on sound science.
And this is supposed to convince me of some vast evil conspiracy?
First of all, I didn't ask where it came from. I pointed out the Obama administration and ABC misrepresented the affects of AGCC on sea level, during a release of the administration's report on Global Climate Change Impacts In the United States.
During the speech and in their PowerPoint presentation, accompanying that speech, the administration says sea levels will rise to the point the Florida Keys are submerged.
Manny LOL'd at that Lutz guy for suggesting it has been said.
I merely show where Lutz might have gotten the idea.
I didn't discuss the science or the accuracy of the claim. I was merely pointing out it was unfair to ridicule Lutz for something the Obama administration also said -- and that was further reported by ABC.
And, I was doing so to illustrate the point AGCC proponents have a lousy set of mouthpieces doing their bidding to a public you want to understand AGCC.
I don't care what your scientist says in the paper you posted. He wasn't the one giving the speech or reporting on it, was he?
Uh-huh. So do you or do you not have americanthinker.com bookmarked or from email notifications?
I am sure you find out of hand dismissals like this to be compelling but I do not.Alarmist nonsense, to be sure.
Meanwhile State Farm is dumping its Florida homeowners policies
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/pal...,6603066.story
Florida flood insurance rates are having to be artificially capped due to cost increases:
http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/busi...am_set_to.html
Actually, I googled the term, "Did the IPCC predict the Florida Keys would be under water" (or something like that).
Found the American Thinker article.
Followed the links to the WhiteHouse.gov blog.
Decided not to watch the video but, did download the WHITE HOUSE'S PowerPoint Presentation.
Found that Slide #11 represents a prediction the Florida Keys will be under water.
It was that easy.
I don't even know what you're suggesting here. I made no judgment on the accuracy of the claim that the Florida Keys would be under water. Manny ridiculed Lutz for saying the prediction had been made, I googled it, found a legitimate U. S. government source that said it, saw it had also been repeated by ABC News (In a somewhat alarmist report, I might add), and suggested Lutz may have gotten the idea from either ABC New, the White House, or some other source that reported on the release of the report.
I did not make a judgment on the science because as you've already noted, I'm not a climate scientist, nor am I involved in the field of climate science; and, I'm not about to go back through college for a degree in a subject just so I can understand the peer-reviewed white papers you post, ostensibly in response to my posts so, I'll simply stipulate, up front, I don't understand the papers you're going to post. Tell me instead what the paper says, where I can read it, how it contradicts what I have posted, and where any public figure is telling me what you say the scientific article is telling me.
By the way, I do have American Thinker bookmarked. It's a great blog.
By the way, here's slide #11 from the White House PowerPoint Presentation:
Thats what I figured.
And you cannot see a relationship between the insurance industry getting out of the Florida risk market and AGW? Intentionally obtuse is cute.
those are news articles from the Orlando Sentinel saying that the insurance industry is bailing out of the risk market because of water and weather related claims. Thats not peer reviewed anything. Its a newspaper article.
What I am trying to convey to your 'conservative' mindset is that because they believe in AGW as evidenced by
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-br...rance-836.html
http://articles.businessinsider.com/...rance-industryHere are some quotes posted by Insurance Networking News:
“From our industry’s perspective, the footprints of climate change are around us and the trend of increasing damage to property and threat to lives is clear,” said Franklin Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of America.
Cynthia McHale, the insurance program director at Ceres, issued a more unequivocal statement: “Our climate is changing, human activity is helping to drive the change, and the costs of these extreme weather events are going to keep ballooning unless we break through our political paralysis, and bring down emissions that are warming our planet. If we continue on this path, extreme weather is certain to cause more homes and businesses to be uninsurable in the private insurance market, leaving the costs to taxpayers or individuals.”
They are putting their money where their mouth is and dumping FL homeowners and flood policies. This should appeal to your 'conservative' mindset because those policies do not just go away they are picked up by the fed and state governments.
Lutz claimed that "the Florida keys were supposed to have disappeared by now"
The powerpoint noted that change is in the mid-range of recent predictions by 2100.
The scientist I quoted noted a great deal of uncertainty.
He also noted the large swings in sea level in the past adds to that.
His attempt was to incorporate new evidence into old projections to see if a better range of rise could be had.
His calculations suggest that it can, and that the IPCC could quite possibly be lower.
You must be psychic.
man, what do you do, quit reading my posts after one line? I'm not challenging either the claim the Florida Keys will be under water or the claim they won't. And, frankly, I don't care what insurance companies are doing out there, on what insurance companies are basing their decisions, or in what climate theory they find themselves invested. That's not the point I'm trying to make.
One more time for Fuzzy. I'll keep it real simple.
MannyIsGod (You know his work here, right?) ridiculed the guy in the Bill Maher video, Lutz is his name, for suggesting the AGCC crowd had predicted the Florida Keys would be under water.
Are you with me, so far?
Manny scoffed that the IPCC never made that prediction.
Are you good? Go back and re-read if you need to.
I googled something close to the term, "Did the IPCC predict the Florida Keys would be under water."
I found the American Thinker article that suggested Manny was right, the IPCC, never did predict sea level rises would inundate the Florida Keys.
So far, so good?
I also found that ABC News reported that the White House, during some kind of release of a climate report (I didn't even note the date), made the claim and illustrated the claim in a PowerPoint Presentation that, indeed, the Florida Keys would be under water due to AGCC.
I suggested Lutz got his impression from those sources because, and I hope you agree here, most of us get our information on current events -- including science -- from sources other than the white papers buried behind a consensus do ent released by the IPCC -- or the U. S. Government, for that matter.
Still with me?
In short I was pointing out to Manny it was wrong to ridicule Lutz for merely repeating a claim he may have gotten from an ostensibly credible source.
The bigger point was that this is a real issue for AGCC proponents.
There are people, who agree with your's and Manny's and Random's position on AGCC -- to whom the public looks for information -- misrepresenting the scientific data on AGCC.
I think that's a huge issue. Manny even did a face palm over Bill Maher's tornado comment.
These public figures -- from comedians to Presidents --are the ones doing your bidding on this issue. When they make mistakes, misrepresentations, or when they lie; it damages your cause.
That's my point. I have no opinion on whether or not Key West will be under water in a 100 years.
They did not mis-represent Herr Doktor Rahmstorf's work.
Professor of Physics of the Oceans, Potsdam University
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/
Do you claim that Professor Rahmstorf's work is "misrepresentation of AGCC"?
He is lying?
You complain about what you think we lie about, then do it yourself.
Intelligence and education are not the same thing. An educated person can have low or average intelligence, and an uneducated man can be intelligent, etc.
What I am speaking of is in this field, the facts are not settled, but being taught as settled.
Science once taught the world was flat. That there were four elements. were these people stupid?
So you are arguing with RG over a pissing contest with MiG and you do not contradict that Florida is at high risk due to AGW as evidenced by amongst other things the insurance industry?
Either you really have no point or are just dissembling. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.
And the uneducated can be really, really stupid as well. You left out that possibility.
CENTURY
CENTURY
NOW
NOW
CENTURY
CENTURY
NOW
NOW
No wonder you don't understand science. You can't even count to 100.
I shouldn't expect too much. Dude only has 10 fingers and 10 toes.
So, who is right on the sea level issue?
These ers are all over the place.
IPCC worst case scenario: 0.6 meters (~23 inches)
German dude: > 1 meter
Al Gore: 6 meters (20 feet)
Al Gore! He said 6 meters! LOL LOST TO GEORGE BUSH. LOL NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST! LOL EVERY CLIMATE SKEPTIC ON THE INTERNET LOVES HIM!
Yet, what all of us here, in the vast unwashed masses, hear is, "Scientists Predict the Florida Keys will be under water by 2100."
What you've described above is a hedge. Sea levels may or may not rise and cover the Florida Keys -- there's a lot of variables to consider. That's what you're telling me the scientists were actually trying to say.
What gets reported is "Scientists Predict the Florida Keys will be under water by 2100."
Are you even beginning to see the problem?
The vast majority of us aren't climate geeks we have neither the capacity nor the inclination to digest all the millions of scientific papers from the tens of thousands of scientists (y'all's numbers, not mine) and come up with an independent conclusion on what it is the scientific community is saying about AGCC.
So, we rely on others -- whether it be the news, the government, our favorite blogs, etc... -- where there is a capacity to understand these things.
I don't know this Lutz character so, I'm not going to try and find where he got the idea the Keys would be under water three years ago. It's good enough for me that our White House illustrated it and allowed an ABC report to hype it without saying what you said.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)