Page 116 of 161 FirstFirst ... 1666106112113114115116117118119120126 ... LastLast
Results 2,876 to 2,900 of 4001
  1. #2876
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Its pretty clear what my point is: an entire financial industry believes in the significance of climate change in Florida. that they are not only talking the talk but they are walking the walk.
    Yup.

    The costs of living in places subject to hurricaines is going to go up.

    One just has to build houses that withstand such things, and avoid building skyscapers near coastlines.
    RandomGuy is offline

  2. #2877
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Darrin, I am not you. I read my links, and I make sure that they actually say what I want them to say before I post them. Why? Because I'm not pulling something out of thin air then googling away at finding things to support it.
    And when I say reactionary drivel what MIG here is describing is exactly what i am talking about. Darrin makes an extra special bag because he has no compunction whatsoever misrepresenting or straight out lying if he cannot find what he is looking for.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  3. #2878
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Well, except that it's not just any scientist, it's the same body upon which you would have me rely for scientific certainty, today.

    Who's to say they're not wrong again?
    More information means more certainty.

    We will research it more, and over the next 10-20 years get a LOT more science and real data under our belts. Each passing year means that the odds of them being wrong goes down. This is a certainty.

    If there is "no evidence" then that will increasingly become evident, and harder to hide by the lying/stupid scientists that Deniers claim is behind this evil plot to take our tax dollars for their own personal gains.

    Given that I don't think the scientists are lying, or stupid, I will try not to be a total ass about it, when we do find that our actions are having increasingly adverse affects, and we find out just how thin your claims of "no evidence" really were.

    You seem smart enough to pull your head out of your ass eventually. Not even you can keep believing the hacks like Dr. Moerner forever.
    RandomGuy is offline

  4. #2879
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    More information means more certainty.

    We will research it more, and over the next 10-20 years get a LOT more science and real data under our belts. Each passing year means that the odds of them being wrong goes down. This is a certainty.

    If there is "no evidence" then that will increasingly become evident, and harder to hide by the lying/stupid scientists that Deniers claim is behind this evil plot to take our tax dollars for their own personal gains.

    Given that I don't think the scientists are lying, or stupid, I will try not to be a total ass about it, when we do find that our actions are having increasingly adverse affects, and we find out just how thin your claims of "no evidence" really were.

    You seem smart enough to pull your head out of your ass eventually. Not even you can keep believing the hacks like Dr. Moerner forever.
    Then I'll wait for the certainty.

    In the meantime quit taking away oil, dumping my money into green energy, and, for God's sake, quit these annoying blockbuster parties masquerading as climate summits...take Al Gore's Nobel and microphone away...and find someone that will report the science reasonably and responsibly.

    And, you can keep your backhanded compliment.

    You call Moerner a hack now. I doubt hacks achieve the level of success he has. He simply disagrees with your position so, it's best to hurl insults in an attempt to discredit.

    Were all the other scientists I quoted and linked -- way back a few pages ago -- hacks, as well?
    Yonivore is offline

  5. #2880
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    I have no doubt, none, zilch, nada, zip, that were he to do so, you would demonize him, and you would be joined by every other Denier blog, WSJ op-ed, and Fox news talking head.
    Not at all. But, in just watching that short piece of video, I'm not certain Tyson buys into AGCC just the GCC part.

    That's the part that's hardest to sell. The "A" part.

    No one here doubts that either, even the people who tend to agree with your conspiracy theory.
    Can't help you there.
    Yonivore is offline

  6. #2881
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    Now you are being petulant. I am forced to dumb it down for you.
    For the love of Pete and Jesus. Would somebody explain to Fuzzy, I'm not debating the science.
    Yonivore is offline

  7. #2882
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    So does paying attention to what's being said.
    Instead, lets consider what I was saying. I linked multiple non-scientist, leading industry sources --trying to consider your bias-- that show that the insurance industry is very concerned about flooding and weather related claims in Florida, that they have spoken before both the Canadian and US congresses, and in fact are raising flood insurance rates as well as getting out of the homeowners coverage market entirely citing ballooning flood and weather related claims in the state.

    Its pretty clear what my point is: an entire financial industry believes in the significance of climate change in Florida. that they are not only talking the talk but they are walking the walk.

    Do you want me to spell it out for you any clearer?

    You are behaving like a child. One that is putting their hands over their ears and screaming 'I don't have to listen to you.' Its intellectually dishonest and quite frankly contemptible.
    For the love of Pete and Jesus. Would somebody explain to Fuzzy, I'm not debating the science.
    I stand by what I said and find more irony in what you are saying as time goes by.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  8. #2883
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    I stand by what I said and find more irony in what you are saying as time goes by.
    What does that have to do with whether or not ABC and the White House misrepresented what was in the report?

    And, what does it have to do with whether or not that Lutz guy might have gotten the idea the Florida Keys were being predicted to be under water?
    Last edited by Yonivore; 04-18-2012 at 08:09 PM.
    Yonivore is offline

  9. #2884
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    What does that have to do with whether or not ABC and the White House misrepresented what was in the report?

    And, what does it have to do with whether or not that Lutz guy might have gotten the idea the Florida Keys were being predicted to be under water?
    What is the point of your criticism of the ABC report? Are you saying that its irrelevant to the effects of climate change in the state of FL. You say you don't trust the media or scientists so i present you the insurance industry.

    Heres how the conversation has been going.

    You: I read this blog that told me that the presidential report on climate change has inaccuracies regarding FL. See AL GORE AGCC EVIL MEDIA!!!

    Me: Okay but the insurance industry says the same thing about FL being at serious risk. They are refusing to write or renew policies and are raising flood coverage. They went to congress stating their concerns here are some links.

    RG and MiG: What are these inaccuarcies?

    You: It says it should be flooded now. I didn't read the report but I got the power point. Look I has pictures! and Fuzzy that isn't germane to the topic.

    RG and MiG: What do 100 years mean?

    Me: Look I understand you don't trust the scientific community so instead of looking to them i am trying to appeal to your 'conservative' principles. If you do not believe them then how about a major industry?

    You: Oh wait, I didn't mean that it was supposed to be flooded now. What I meant was that they didn't say that it could be natural. there is no proof that it is man made. I don't trust scientists except the ones brought up by this blog. YOU ALL ARE DUPED BY AL GORE AND HIS EVIL MEDIA!! AL GORE AL GORE AL GORE!!!!

    You: And Fuzzy i only brought up the blog and am pointing out the inaccuracies. Can't you read? Anything else is irrelevant. Obviously nothing but what I want to talk about is relevant. I CAN'T HEAR YOU!! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!

    RG: Well I don't know what your talking about but look, its not like the presidential report did not thoroughly do ent their conclusions. Here is the first page of three pages of do entation.

    MiG: What are you talking about? I don't even pay attention to the media or Al Gore to come to my conclusions. I have been studying climate for years and have come to my own conclusions. i do not even speak to what should be policy about it.

    Me: Are you serious? You have been bringing up doubts about a report that FL is at serious risk because of AGW and say that you don't trust scientists. I am showing you a major industry that has come to the same conclusion and how they are acting upon it. You're missing the forest for a tree. Are you daft?

    You: I don't care what you guys say. All I know is that you cannot trust AGCC they always lie. This is just a religion for you guys. AL GORE!!! AL GORE!!! AGCC!!! SCIENTISTS ARE LIARS!!!

    You: Someone needs to tell Fuzzy that i am not arguing the science.

    RG and MiG: you can't be serious. This again? Come on man we have been down this road before are you even going to consider anything we have said?

    Me: You told me that I cannot read but did you miss the part where I intentionally did not bring up scientists to show the same conclusion but rather a major industry. I am trying to consider your bias.

    You: AL GORE!! APCC AL GORE!!! AL GORE!!!AL GORE!!!AL GORE!!!AL GORE!!!AL GORE!!!AL GORE!!!AL GORE!!!AL GORE!!!AL GORE!!!

    You in your most recent response: Fuzzy, what does that have to do with what this blog is telling me to believe. they lie.




    Like I said its sad and the more you do it the more that sadness is growing onto contempt.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  10. #2885
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    What is the point of your criticism of the ABC report?
    Okay, you need to go way back to my original post which was a response to Manny's LOL at the Lutz guy in the Bill Maher video.

    Manny LOL'd and said the IPCC never predicted the Florida Keys would be covered with water.

    I googled it and found that, as Manny said, the IPCC never did predict the Florida Keys would be covered with water.

    But, I also found what I thought was a good explanation of why Mr. Lutz might have gotten the idea the IPCC predicted the Florida Keys would be covered with water.

    That's what the post was intended to demonstrate.

    It had nothing to do with whether or not the Florida Keys are actually going to be covered with water. It had nothing to do with what ever insurance companies are doing in response to their own ideas of the affects of global climate chance. It wasn't even about the science.

    It was about how ideas get put out in the public square.

    Do you get it now?
    Yonivore is offline

  11. #2886
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Okay, you need to go way back to my original post which was a response to Manny's LOL at the Lutz guy in the Bill Maher video.

    Manny LOL'd and said the IPCC never predicted the Florida Keys would be covered with water.

    I googled it and found that, as Manny said, the IPCC never did predict the Florida Keys would be covered with water.

    But, I also found what I thought was a good explanation of why Mr. Lutz might have gotten the idea the IPCC predicted the Florida Keys would be covered with water.

    That's what the post was intended to demonstrate.

    It had nothing to do with whether or not the Florida Keys are actually going to be covered with water. It had nothing to do with what ever insurance companies are doing in response to their own ideas of the affects of global climate chance. It wasn't even about the science.

    It was about how ideas get put out in the public square.

    Do you get it now?
    I got it when you first brought it up.

    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  12. #2887
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    I got it when you first brought it up.
    Then what the have you been going on about all this time?
    Yonivore is offline

  13. #2888
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Now you are being petulant. I am forced to dumb it down for you.

    You sit there and claim that all you care about is some supposed specific inaccuracy in an ABC report that amongst other things stated that Florida was expected to experience an adverse rise in sea levels in the next 100 years.

    Now lets just disregard for a moment that you have been waffling over and over again as to what that particular inaccuracy is.

    Instead, lets consider what I was saying. I linked multiple non-scientist, leading industry sources --trying to consider your bias-- that show that the insurance industry is very concerned about flooding and weather related claims in Florida, that they have spoken before both the Canadian and US congresses, and in fact are raising flood insurance rates as well as getting out of the homeowners coverage market entirely citing ballooning flood and weather related claims in the state.

    Its pretty clear what my point is: an entire financial industry believes in the significance of climate change in Florida. that they are not only talking the talk but they are walking the walk.

    Now lets consider what you are saying: that an ABC News Report about the significance of climate change was inaccurate about said significance in the sate of Florida.

    Does that clear up why I am saying that if what I am contending is irrelevant then you have no point? Does that clear up why I am saying that you are being intentionally obtuse? Does that clear up why I say that you are missing the forest for a tree?

    Do you want me to spell it out for you any clearer?

    You are behaving like a child. One that is putting their hands over their ears and screaming 'I don't have to listen to you.' Its intellectually dishonest and quite frankly contemptible.
    Belaboring a point over and over and over again is fun but its pointless without a premise.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  14. #2889
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    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.
    CENTURY

    CENTURY

    NOW

    NOW

    CENTURY

    CENTURY

    NOW

    NOW


    No wonder you don't understand science. You can't even count to 100.
    Scientists say Keys might be underwater by 2100. Its 2011 and they're not, therefore I am confused and I determine that I cannot trust scientists due to another failed prediction.

    Oh, and AL GORE!
    We don't love him. We use him as an example of the problem I've been trying to describe YOU have over the past several pages of this thread.

    He has, over the years, had a varying degree of credibility in the AGCC community. Didn't he and his Inconvenient Truth video receive a Nobel?

    People, on your side of the fence on this issue, who are NOT climate geeks -- like you -- find Al Gore to be a credible voice of reason on the matter.

    That should concern you not cause you to ridicule me for pointing it out.
    I'm really trying to keep this civil.

    Yeah, I know what year it is.

    Do you know who's representing your cause on the world stage?

    People like Al Gore and Bill Maher.
    Yonivore, as I've stated many times on here, I very much dislike Al Gore. However, I also really don't give a rats ass about the policy side of AGW. Therefore, I don't care who represents the issue.

    I'll be happy to study atmospheric and climate dynamics for the next 50+ years whether or not the GOP ever believes an ounce of AGW theory. Its not my desire to develop some kind of PR campaign to convince people like you to unbury your heads and pay attention to the science instead of making decisions based on whether or not you like the guy giving the message. And I can tell you, that scientists around the world share my sentiment because if they didn't they sure as wouldn't have become scientists and would have instead gone into PR.

    I commend you for trying to keep it civil, and I will in turn try to do the same. But the reality is that I have absolutely zero interest in the perceived success or failure of the PR campaign.

    I will say this: It doesnt take an understanding of advanced atmospheric dynamics to understand climate change, and when polls show that climate change denial in this country is broken down along party lines, it tells me a whole of a lot. Its a pattern we see in other "contriversial" scientific issues (IE evolution)
    That's not how ABC reported it.


    You're right it is 2011 and that's 12 years beyond when the United Nations told us, back in 1989 that global warming would be beyond our control and creating eco-refugees by 1999.



    Yeah, how 'bout that guy. He's AGCC's biggest fan and it's biggest financial beneficiary.

    The AGCC crowd will never live down that piece of crap receiving a Nobel for his work on climate change.
    You should. They're the chief reason AGCC proponents are losing the battle.


    I was down with that until you suggested it was a dislike of the messenger that was causing the skepticism. That's not it. It's that the messenger has been provably wrong on so many occasions.



    No one is suggesting the climate isn't changing. There is just considerable (and legitimate) disagreement over what's causing it, if it's even a bad thing, and that man can do anything to alter it.
    You need to actually go and watch the newscast. He clearly says 'late this century.'

    Further your blog references conditions in Florida, so my point about claims and the reaction of the insurance industry to flood and weather related claims is straight up on point.

    I was wrong you are dissembling.
    Does he just as clearly say this is the worst case scenario that the sea level rise may actually be quite modest and within natural variations?


    So go post it in the comments on American Thinker. Your insurance comments were germane to the point of the discussion in her.
    i can keep up. can you?
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  15. #2890
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    No, you really can't.

    That too was about messaging. About why should we believe the IPCC now when, in 1989, they were telling us we'd be eco-refugees by now.

    I'm done talking about the science. I'm also done talking to you.
    Last edited by Yonivore; 04-18-2012 at 10:34 PM.
    Yonivore is offline

  16. #2891
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    No, you really can't.

    That too was about messaging. About why should we believe the IPCC now when, in 1989, they were telling us we'd be eco-refugees by now.

    I'm done talking about the science. I'm also done talking to you.
    I am not talking about science. Well I guess the insurance industry uses actuarial science.

    Somewhere you think that the ABC misreported the report but you aren't really sure where and you are not arguing the science. AL GORE AL GORE IPCC IS BAD AGCC RELIGION Oh I didn't really mean that I am not arguing the science but they lie. Some other source thats not science doesn't matter because i am not arguing science.

    You want to have a problem iwth something but you're really nor sure AL GORE AL GORE IPCC AGCC THEYY LIE. I'm not arguing science. A source that isnt science doesn't matter because I anot arguing science. IPCC!!!
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  17. #2892
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Seriously? @ Manny. You know better.
    No he doesn't.

    He's being indoctrinated on the subject.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  18. #2893
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Okay, you need to go way back to my original post which was a response to Manny's LOL at the Lutz guy in the Bill Maher video.

    Manny LOL'd and said the IPCC never predicted the Florida Keys would be covered with water.

    I googled it and found that, as Manny said, the IPCC never did predict the Florida Keys would be covered with water.

    But, I also found what I thought was a good explanation of why Mr. Lutz might have gotten the idea the IPCC predicted the Florida Keys would be covered with water.

    That's what the post was intended to demonstrate.

    It had nothing to do with whether or not the Florida Keys are actually going to be covered with water. It had nothing to do with what ever insurance companies are doing in response to their own ideas of the affects of global climate chance. It wasn't even about the science.

    It was about how ideas get put out in the public square.

    Do you get it now?
    Don't expect him to get anything. Once he makes up his mind, he knows he is wright, and anyone who disagree gets verbal attacks.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  19. #2894
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Don't expect him to get anything. Once he makes up his mind, he knows he is wright, and anyone who disagree gets verbal attacks.
    Yeah thats why I we went back and forth for hours and for the most part had a discussion. If you weren't so stupid and full of yourself, you would realize i only treat you as i do because you are extra special stupid as has been detailed.

    I am not willing to say that Yoni is stupid. Stubborn sure but thats okay. He also shows a bit of introspection from time to time which i certainly appreciate. if you read the thread, i actually made a point to consider his biases and address them.

    You on the other hand are a special blend of pigheaded and stupid so i don't really bother doing much with you other than pointing that out.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  20. #2895
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    Somewhere you think that the ABC misreported the report but you aren't really sure...
    Actually, I am sure about where ABC Misrepresented the report; that's all I've been talking about.

    Answer three questions.

    Did ABC and the bureaucrat presenting the government report give the impression (and, in the case of ABC, sensationalize the prediction) that the Florida Keys would be under water by 2100? It's a simple yes or no question.

    If you answer yes. I've made half of my point. If you answer no. You still have no ing clue about what I've been discussing.

    Second, Did the government report, on which ABC reported and which the government bureaucrat was presenting predict the Florida Keys would be under water by 2100? Another simple, yes or no question.

    If you answer yes, you're in disagreement with Manny (And, Manny, I believe I remember you in agreement on this point) and I on the matter because, the report only suggested it was a possibility -- on the high end of the prediction -- that Florida would see sea level rises that would inundate the Florida Keys.

    If you answer no; you and I and Manny all agree. ABC sensationalized the report and the bureaucrat uncritically presented an impression that wasn't in the do ent.

    Finally, Could the average, reasonable person, (a non-science geek that doesn't put themselves to bed reading climate papers every night), watch the ABC report and see slide #11 in the PowerPoint presentation and come to the conclusion the government was predicting the Florida Keys would be under water by 2100?

    Yes or no?

    If yes, we are in agreement and you've discovered the only point I was trying make.

    If no. I think you're just being disingenuous.

    My larger point to Manny was that this is part of the problem with getting credible information from his side of the argument to the general public at large. The messengers -- from whom most average, non-science geek, people consume their information -- are casting doubt on the science because they ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS hype the predictions.

    Al Gore is only mentioned because he's the biggest purveyor of exaggerated global climate change hysteria.

    Will you please shut the up about it now?
    Last edited by Yonivore; 04-19-2012 at 06:35 AM.
    Yonivore is offline

  21. #2896
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    I am not willing to say that Yoni is stupid. Stubborn sure but thats okay. He also shows a bit of introspection from time to time which i certainly appreciate. if you read the thread, i actually made a point to consider his biases and address them.
    Oh, stop with the faint praise; you know you think I'm an idiotic far right-wing conservative stuck on stupid.

    None of which is true, by the way, but -- nevertheless -- it's really what you project in here. You, and Manny, and Random, and a few others -- and all simply because we don't agree with your world view, won't accept your sources uncritically, and don't cave to the incessant drumbeat of your truths.

    As for me, I just simply think you're wrong on some issues and I try, stubbornly (as you said), to get you to understand my position -- not necessarily agree with it, but understand how it might be a reasonable position to take.
    Yonivore is offline

  22. #2897
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    You, and Manny, and Random, and a few others -- and all simply because we don't agree with your world view, won't accept your sources uncritically, and don't cave to the incessant drumbeat of your truths.
    Notice how Manny now refuses to respond to me after I asked for clarification, and then brought up Ice Sheets are also affected by geothermal activity.

    He just cannot comprehend multiple variables I think.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  23. #2898
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    Notice how Manny...
    No, I don't notice, WC; I'm just not that interested in the playground politics or personalities in this forum.

    Y'all can just leave me out of it.
    Yonivore is offline

  24. #2899
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    That too was about messaging. About why should we believe the IPCC now when, in 1989, they were telling us we'd be eco-refugees by now.

    I'm done talking about the science. I'm also done talking to you.

    Sorry, there's no proof, none, zilch, zero, that humankind is having any appreciable affect on global climate.
    You were done talking about science a while back.

    Remember, the purpose of this thread is to prove that skeptics of global warming are little more than pseudoscientist deniers.

    why should we believe the IPCC now when, in 1989, they were telling us we'd be eco-refugees by now
    You can't make your case without

    1) Misrepresenting the science ["does the earth have an optimal climate?"]
    2) Logically flawed arguments ["Al Gore is a hypocrite, therefore AGCC is bunk"]
    3) Unsupported assertions [logically implied "climate scientists are all stupid/lying"]


    This is exactly what pseudoscientists and conspiracy theorists do. Even when the logical flaws in your arguments are pointed out clearly, you simply move on to the next point, then circle back around to the debunked argument when that doesnt' work.

    Even when you can find a scientist who agrees with you, they do such a bad job at being honest skeptics that even *I* can figure out how bad it is.

    The public policy solution you advocate, i.e. "nothing" is arguably going to slow our economy more than cutting CO2 emissions.

    What's left?

    Repeating the same debunked logical fallacies? You don't have the science on your side, so that seems to be all you have to offer.
    RandomGuy is offline

  25. #2900
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Actually, I am sure about where ABC Misrepresented the report; that's all I've been talking about.

    Answer three questions.

    Did ABC and the bureaucrat presenting the government report give the impression (and, in the case of ABC, sensationalize the prediction) that the Florida Keys would be under water by 2100? It's a simple yes or no question.

    If you answer yes. I've made half of my point. If you answer no. You still have no ing clue about what I've been discussing.

    Yes.

    Second, Did the government report, on which ABC reported and which the government bureaucrat was presenting predict the Florida Keys would be under water by 2100? Another simple, yes or no question.
    As a result of these and other stresses, the corals that
    form the reefs in the Florida Keys, Puerto Rico, Hawaii,
    and the Pacific Islands are projected to be lost if
    carbon dioxide concentrations continue to rise at their
    current rate[footnote 560]
    To date, 50 percent of the corals
    in Virgin Islands National Park have died from the
    bleaching and disease events. In the Florida Keys,
    summer bleaching in 2005 was also followed by
    disease in September.70
    The report didn't say exactly that. The local subsidiance will vary greatly, especially if the reefs that are protecting coastlines currently die off and are not replaced.

    The IPCC report's lower global rise would be accompanied by variations due to erosion and subsidance that could lead to a lot of low lying areas disappearing. Florida is already having to replace beaches using dredged sand from the shelf, at great expense.


    If you answer yes, you're in disagreement with Manny (And, Manny, I believe I remember you in agreement on this point) and I on the matter because, the report only suggested it was a possibility -- on the high end of the prediction -- that Florida would see sea level rises that would inundate the Florida Keys.


    If you answer no; you and I and Manny all agree. ABC sensationalized the report and the bureaucrat uncritically presented an impression that wasn't in the do ent.
    It is a fair charactorization of the report to think that the Keys would be lost, so the answer is yes. On skimming, I could not find the claim, but it did go into some detail about the effects of erosion on barrier islands and other Carribean islands.


    Finally, Could the average, reasonable person, (a non-science geek that doesn't put themselves to bed reading climate papers every night), watch the ABC report and see slide #11 in the PowerPoint presentation and come to the conclusion the government was predicting the Florida Keys would be under water by 2100? Yes or no?
    Yes.

    If yes, we are in agreement and you've discovered the only point I was trying make.
    Except that your point is based, ultimately, on the assumption that the report that you didn't read couldn't be intepreted that way. It can.


    If no. I think you're just being disingenuous.

    My larger point to Manny was that this is part of the problem with getting credible information from his side of the argument to the general public at large. The messengers -- from whom most average, non-science geek, people consume their information -- are casting doubt on the science because they ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS hype the predictions.

    Al Gore is only mentioned because he's the biggest purveyor of exaggerated global climate change hysteria.

    Will you please shut the up about it now?
    If you like, I can do some screen caps from the report.

    Did you consider that a map like that would have to be prepared by someone? Who do you think prepared the map? The non-scientist buearocrat?
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-19-2012 at 08:55 AM.
    RandomGuy is offline

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •