Bookmark and Share  
Home Forum Index Politics Philosophy Diversions Theology Join Tips & Rules
SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com®
Before you decide
Over 20,000 selectors
Welcome! » Log In » Create A New Profile

Another youngster leads the way.

Posted by interested 
Another youngster leads the way.
February 25, 2012 03:27AM
[forms.climaterealityproject.org]

At the Scopes Monkey Trial, Clarence Darrow gave a brilliant speech, but the cynical journalist H.L. Mencken told him "You may as well have shouted it up a waterspout in Outer Mongolia for all the effect it will have on your listeners ..

Ditto here.
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 25, 2012 05:11AM
PA - home of Foghorn.
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 25, 2012 05:54AM
So much for the separation of church (climate cult) and state.

http://rlv.zcache.com/the_democrat_plantation_slavery_through_dependency_bumper_sticker-ra26d38da16684c89a0eb6d50dde1e5ee_v9wht_8byvr_512.jpg
HHH
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 25, 2012 05:14PM
You're a cultanoid. You see cults where they don't exist.

____________________________________________
Obamacare on track for 7 million sign-ups, a figure opponents said would never be reached.
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 25, 2012 05:37PM
He sees a lot of things that don't exist.

http://imgdump.novarata.net/image.php?di=WN26
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 25, 2012 11:24PM
AGW meets all the requirements of a cult. Sorry to burst your bubbles.

http://rlv.zcache.com/the_democrat_plantation_slavery_through_dependency_bumper_sticker-ra26d38da16684c89a0eb6d50dde1e5ee_v9wht_8byvr_512.jpg
Anonymous User
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 25, 2012 11:50PM
This issue strikes me as something akin to book burning mixed with paranoia.

Simply because the Heartland Institute is developing a global warming curriculum doesn't mean any schools will adopt it. But so what if some schools did? Does that preclude students from hearing the climate change alarmists argument? Does it stop teachers and students from finding flaw with the Heartland Institute's argument? Are the alarmists afraid that their arguments won't stand up to the Heartland Institute's argument? Methinks that in a debate of ideas, alarmists aren't confident that their side will prevail. So they'd prefer to suppress opposing views.
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 26, 2012 12:52AM
"According to your own documents, your organization is funded by coal and oil companies with a financial stake in denying climate science..."


Science... or propaganda. You keep coming down on the wrong side, Curt.
Anonymous User
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 26, 2012 02:53AM
Indy,
You act as if that this some big revelation. If you learned that Siemens and GE (makers of wind turbines) and other companies that benefit financially from the fear of global warming, would you discount any pro-climate change studies that they funded? Is that automatically propaganda because corporate interests funded it?

You still didn't answer my questions. What is so powerful and compelling in this Heartland Institute curriculum that climate alarmists' arguments can't counter it?
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 26, 2012 07:58AM
The answers are obvious, Curt, given the money and powers behind the Heartland Institute; and given that many powerful politicians, including almost the whole of the Republican Party, want such a curriculum.

The curriculum would also have been developed by an official at the Department of Energy.

There is no question about who would win any debate that is conducted on scientific merits. However, rhetoric is a more powerful persuader than fact for those who find the fact unpalatable. To that end, Heartland and other denial institutions employ professional rhetoricians to make their "case."

At the Scopes Monkey Trial, Clarence Darrow gave a brilliant speech, but the cynical journalist H.L. Mencken told him "You may as well have shouted it up a waterspout in Outer Mongolia for all the effect it will have on your listeners ..

Ditto here.
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 26, 2012 05:20PM
"If you learned that Siemens and GE (makers of wind turbines) and other companies that benefit financially from the fear of global warming, would you discount any pro-climate change studies that they funded? Is that automatically propaganda because corporate interests funded it?" -Curt

I would be suspicious of any findings from an institute set up by those particular companies that contradicted the findings of the vast majority of the scientific community whatever the subject was. Yes, I would assume that it is automatically propaganda because it was those companies funding it.

Corporations do not set up foundations and studies to discover the truth, whatever it is. They set up foundations and studies to maximize their profits and/or to protect themselves from anything that might negatively affect their profits. They don't donate money to a politician because he or she may be the best person to have in power for the most people. They donate money to the politician who they think will support the best policies for increasing their profits. They don't give money to charities out of the goodness of their heart and to help those in need. They give money to charities for tax benefits and to improve their public image, which they see as enhancing their profits. Corporations on the scale of a GE or a Siemens or a BP or an Altria or a Cigna don't do anything that isn't designed primarily with the intention of increasing their profits. It's really that simple, Curt. There really isn't much reason not to suspect that anything they do or any study they fund isn't at it's foundation done to maximize their profits first and foremost above all else. There really isn't.

The truth is nothing more than an obstacle to them if it threatens their profits.

http://imgdump.novarata.net/image.php?di=WN26
Anonymous User
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 26, 2012 07:25PM
Ponderer,
You or others still haven't explained why this apparently skeptical research is so frightening to you. They are not forcing schools to accept their curriculum program. But even if schools did present it, their arguments would have to go up against the $ billions every year that the Department of Energy* spends funding climate change research. Let's not pretend that "discovering" evidence of impending climate change isn't a business. Climate researchers are looking forward to $5 billion in paychecks in 2012 and 2013. And that's just our federal goverment funding dollars. There are private interests, foreign governments and the UN funding more research.

* [docs.google.com] $2.6 billion (up 5.6%) for the U.S. Global Change Research Program
HHH
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 26, 2012 08:13PM
Curt - What is your view on the teaching of creationism as an "opposing viewpoint" to evolution? This global warming debate reminds me a lot of that supposed debate.

____________________________________________
Obamacare on track for 7 million sign-ups, a figure opponents said would never be reached.
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 26, 2012 09:11PM
"You or others still haven't explained why this apparently skeptical research is so frightening to you." -Curt

I'm not frightened by it at all. I just don't give it much credibility.

http://imgdump.novarata.net/image.php?di=WN26



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2012 10:13PM by Ponderer.
Anonymous User
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 26, 2012 09:26PM
HHH,
That's a tempting but an inaccurate analogy. The creationism vs evolution debate is clearly one of religion vs, science. Climate skeptics vs. warners both rely on scientific evidence; both sides' arguments can and should be scrutinized. Creationists can't prove their claims and they don't really try to in a scientific manner.

A better analogy would be Lamarckian evolutionary theories vs. Darwinian evolutionary theories. Jean Lamarck's theories over time were discounted and Darwin won the debate. Although recently there has been re-evaluation and re-appreciation of Lamarck's theories. "...there is growing evidence that cells can activate low-fidelity DNA polymerases in times of stress to induce mutations. While this does not directly confer advantage to the organism on the organismal level, it makes sense at the gene-evolution level. While the acquisition of new genetic traits is random, and selection remains Darwinian, the active process of identifying the necessity to mutate is considered to be Lamarckian." [en.wikipedia.org]
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 26, 2012 09:28PM
Because when people start believing skeptical research...

http://i42.tinypic.com/zyj9mb.jpg
Anonymous User
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 26, 2012 11:37PM
Curt, do you disagree with any of this:

Global warming refers to the rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans, which started to increase in the late 19th century and is projected to keep going up. Since the early 20th century, Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), with about two thirds of the increase occurring since 1980. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized nations.

[en.wikipedia.org]

If not, why would you want our kids to learn something different?
Anonymous User
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 27, 2012 12:49AM
Dick,
My opinion or any other single person's opinion doesn't matter as to what kids learn in school. Prevailing opinion shouldn't dictate what is taught in science classes. Scence is not like religion in which you have to accept their "truths" by faith, with no questions asked. I agree with Dr. Pope, who was talking about the "False Memory Syndrome Epidemic" but it applies to any scientific issue including Climate Change.

"Science works best when claims and hypotheses can be continually questioned. That which tends to disallow doubt and discredit anyone who disagrees is unlikely to foster the scientific venture or promote public policies and clinical practices based on Scientific principles. Each scientific claim should prevail or fall on its research validation and logic." - Kenneth S. Pope, Ph.D.

What is more important for kids to learn than any theory about Climate Change is critical thinking skills so they can independently assess any scientific claim. But suppressing the ideas of those who dare to question the establishment scientists is antithetical to good science.
Anonymous User
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 27, 2012 02:06AM
I really don't think one's talking about suppressing ideas either in creationism or in the denial of human caused climate change. What is being talked about is teaching kids consensus scientific opinion on those matters as they stand today and not as they could stand tomorrow.

Tommorow perhaps evidence will come in that show current consensus opinions to be mistaken. If so, then that should be taught. But that evidence isn't in at the moment and it's very important that kids learn to respect the evidence whether that evidence points to something that they want to believe is true or to something that they do not want to believe is true.

It could be that our species was created by gods. It could be that humans are responsible for only a negligible part of the dramatic increase we've seen recently in the earth's temperature. However, there is a strong scientific consensus that better explanations are available for both events and those better explanations should be taught in our schools -- at the moment.
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 27, 2012 02:25AM
Oil companies paying folks to muddy the issue is not "science", Curt.
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 27, 2012 02:27AM
This is, indeed, analogous to the creationism/evolution question, and the teaching of any alternative to the established science of Human caused Climate Change is religion vs science. It is Mammon vs science.

You keep pulling these red herrings out of your back pocket, Curt. The DOE does not spend $2,6 billion to fund any side to a debate. It spends money on research into the reality of a changing climate. It would fund any realistic study to show an alternative to the unanimously accepted view of change and the coming effects. Much of that money is also spent on finding the alternatives that it is imperative we must find.

There is no alternative theory. You might just as well argue that schools should include the experiments of Newton and others to turn lead into gold. There was a time in the distant past when that might have been legitimate. There was also a time when the practitioners of that "alternative" would have been executed.

There was a time when the suggested alternatives to AGW within climate change were legitimate hypothesis but that time is past. The time for executing the practitioners may have come since they are now responsible for mass killings! For genocide!

At the Scopes Monkey Trial, Clarence Darrow gave a brilliant speech, but the cynical journalist H.L. Mencken told him "You may as well have shouted it up a waterspout in Outer Mongolia for all the effect it will have on your listeners ..

Ditto here.
Anonymous User
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 27, 2012 02:46AM
interested Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There was a time when the suggested alternatives
> to AGW within climate change were legitimate
> hypothesis but that time is past. The time for
> executing the practitioners may have come since
> they are now responsible for mass killings! For
> genocide!

interested,
So would issue a fatwah against the Climate Change skeptics?! You are a GW cultist.


Dick,
If we can't question the current consensus opinion today then there never will be a new or more enlightened opinion tomorrow. We've tried the no questions approach before. It was called the Dark Ages.
Anonymous User
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 27, 2012 03:12AM
Curt wrote: Dick, If we can't question the current consensus opinion today then there never will be a new or more enlightened opinion tomorrow. We've tried the no questions approach before. It was called the Dark Ages.

There's an important difference between legitimate questioning of an explanation that, based on evidence, seems to be the most likely explanation for a phenomenon and an insistance, based on no or little evidence, that that explanation is mistaken.

Don't be the kind of nut who argues like a creationist or a UFO enthusiast or a 9/11 conspiracy theorist argues, Curt. Be a regular kind of nut like the rest of us. smiling smiley
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 27, 2012 04:05AM
Talk to the people of the Maldives Islands about "global warming" and the effects of rising sea levels.
Oops, you can't; because some of their islands are now underwater.
They are kind of like the canaries in a coal mine.
By the time you notice they are all dead, so are you.
(or at least, you will be soon)


Mac



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2012 04:07AM by Mac McFadden.
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 27, 2012 05:34AM
You can question a "current" consensus opinion all you like, Curt. To continue questioning that opinion when all doubt has been removed and there is no other explanation that is possible. is not questioning.

There is no one questioning the consensus except for a number of paid publicists; a number of politicians who are bought by the financial interests opposed to action on CO2; and a handful of scientists who do no research but have sold themselves to the same interests as those politicians. The most prominent of these, scientists, politiciand and PR concerns, are the same ones who favoured the tobacco industry in the same manner.

They lied and misrepresented for money.

You want your science from Inhofe and Morano. I want mine from Hanson and Mann and the few thousand more who actually work on discovering the truth of this. Including, btw, Republicans like Alley, one of the best (and entertaining) scientists and Hayhoe, a Born again Christian who happens to also be a dedicated scientist and who takes her religion seriously enough to demand truth.

At the Scopes Monkey Trial, Clarence Darrow gave a brilliant speech, but the cynical journalist H.L. Mencken told him "You may as well have shouted it up a waterspout in Outer Mongolia for all the effect it will have on your listeners ..

Ditto here.
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 27, 2012 05:46AM
Here is a sample of the scientific community and its consensus. Do a few American Right Wing 'Think tanks' measure up against this as credible questioners?

NAS10: May, 2010 statement from 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences defending the integrity of climate science, and condemning "McCarthy-like tactics" against climate scientists. Discussed at DeSmogBlog and at ClimateProgress.
FR10: May, 2010 statement from over 600 scientists in France rebutting outrageous attacks on climate science by Claude Allegre.
NL10: May, 2010 statement from scientists in the Netherlands; 50 initial signers; now 196 Dutch and 96 foreign signers [May 2010].
OLFS10: March, 2010 Open Letter from U.S. Scientists on the IPCC, 320 signers (list)
UCS10 March, 2010 US Scientists and Economists' Call to Action organised by the Union of Concerned Scientists. This builds on their similar 2008 statement, with over 2000 signatories.
UKsc09: Dec. 2009 Statement from the UK science community signed by 1700 U.K. scientists, from 67 universities and 55 other institutions, re-affirming the integrity of climate science and data sources, in response to the University of East Anglia email break-in, which begins:

We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method.

All the signatories of these are genuine scientists: a good many of them doing peer reviewed research on the question.

I can add links in if you wish.

At the Scopes Monkey Trial, Clarence Darrow gave a brilliant speech, but the cynical journalist H.L. Mencken told him "You may as well have shouted it up a waterspout in Outer Mongolia for all the effect it will have on your listeners ..

Ditto here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2012 05:49AM by interested.
Anonymous User
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 27, 2012 06:31AM
Mac McFadden Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Talk to the people of the Maldives Islands about
> "global warming" and the effects of rising sea
> levels.
> Oops, you can't; because some of their islands are
> now underwater.
> They are kind of like the canaries in a coal
> mine.
> By the time you notice they are all dead, so are
> you.
> (or at least, you will be soon)


There has been a lot claims that the Maldives are sinking. Last year, Maldivian president and his cabinet had an underwater meeting to dramatize their supposed plight. Guess what they say they need from the rest of the world? Money! Unfortunately for him, the Maldives president was ousted in a coup earlier this month. While there has been a lot fretting about the Maldives--it's the world's flattest and lowest lying nation (elevation about 8 feet) for years--there is no evidence that they are sinking. By the way, there is ocean shoreline within a few blocks of Ponderer and PttP. It a body of water that is contiguous to the water that surrounds the Maldives. When their sea level goes up, so does the sea level in every other ocean shoreline. Ask Ponderer and PttP if they've detected any change on their shore line. Or drive to Newport and ask the old timers there if they noticed any change.

So as to put your mind at ease, people have inhabited the Maldives since at least the Third Century BC. They have survived over those two millennia several warming periods that were much watmer than it is now or predicted to be anytime soon, not to mention they survived tsunamis and hurricanes.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/loehle_fig2.JPG Source: [www.worldclimatereport.com]
Anonymous User
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 27, 2012 02:51PM
Curt wrote: Prevailing opinion shouldn't dictate what is taught in science classes.

Curt, not only should prevailing consensus scientific opinion be taught in science classrooms but it is being taught in science classrooms. now. everyday. all over the country.

At its core, the theory of evolution is nothing more than prevailing consensus scientific opinion. That theory is not carved in stone anywhere. It could be mistaken. And when it is shown to be mistaken, something else should be taught -- but not until that time. Same goes for any other prevailing consensus scientific opinion, including human induced climate change.
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 27, 2012 03:07PM
The problem Dick is that they won't be presenting the VOLUMES of data that discredits the calling for the end of the Earth. The worse part is that it's not NEARLY as prevailing (or proven) as evolution. There is no such thing as science by consensus or vote. As soon as the AGW cult learns this (you know real science) the better they will be. Til then, expect more petitions etc, rather than facts and data.

http://rlv.zcache.com/the_democrat_plantation_slavery_through_dependency_bumper_sticker-ra26d38da16684c89a0eb6d50dde1e5ee_v9wht_8byvr_512.jpg
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 27, 2012 06:06PM
So, Curt! You go to Patrick Michaels' denial site for your information. Michaels is the worst of the worst as far as actual scientists go. Not that he was ever a very prominent one until he sold out to the fossil fuel industry and made a name for himself by fraudulent misrepresentations and outright lying on behalf of himself and the Cato Institute that funds him - with the 40% of his funds that he has had to admit come directly from oil companies.

Loehle's paper was published in Energy and Environment where no reputable scientist looks for publication. A fringe journal to be kind to it. His conclusions and graph were based on dating errors of 50 years (later corrected when actual scientists ridiculed it). He based his conclusions on a number of local proxies - not Global. The calibration was miles off and there were other problems that I forget.

But it was absolute nonsense and rightly ridiculed out of consideration.

Here you will find an accurate graph of SLR and, if you remove the blinkers, you will notice that the rate is increasing.

Incidentally, some have already been evacuated from Tuvalu because of the rise in water levels.

Forgot the link

[www.skepticalscience.com]

At the Scopes Monkey Trial, Clarence Darrow gave a brilliant speech, but the cynical journalist H.L. Mencken told him "You may as well have shouted it up a waterspout in Outer Mongolia for all the effect it will have on your listeners ..

Ditto here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2012 06:42PM by interested.
Anonymous User
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 27, 2012 07:30PM
Interested,
I have no idea who Patrick Michaels is. I don't believe I have ever seen his site. I certainly didn't quote or cite anything he said. I presume that he had the audacity to note what I did, namely Maldivians have managed to stay afloat through warming period since the time before Christ and earlier.

Show me credible source stating Tuvalu is being "evacuated" because global warming caused increases in sea level (and not just hand wringing predictions of a mass evacuation). Worldwide, according to the IPCC sea level has risen 0.044 tp 0.088 inches per year over the last century. There was a recent evacuation of Tuvalu, but it was because of a tsunami. [www.telegraph.co.uk]
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 27, 2012 07:59PM
The first of the evacuations, Curt. There has been a deputation from Tuvalu in New Zealand for a couple of years noe exploring the possibilities for the people of those Islands. Some are living there in preparation (that is not on this link but I thought I would give you some actual evidence.

[www.guardian.co.uk]

You may not know who Pat Michaels is. That means you should look at your sources since your chart is from Climate Audit - Pat Michaels blog.

Sea level rise is what the graph I provided shows. The IPCC is correct and you should be able to see from that and the chart that the rise over the past decade is double the previous rate. And that is almost entirely from thermal expansion.

Wait until the actual ice melt from Greenland and Antarctica starts to reach the oceans. This site will give you some idea of the enormity of ice melt already. I can give you some sites to watch if you would like them.

[www.skepticalscience.com]

At the Scopes Monkey Trial, Clarence Darrow gave a brilliant speech, but the cynical journalist H.L. Mencken told him "You may as well have shouted it up a waterspout in Outer Mongolia for all the effect it will have on your listeners ..

Ditto here.
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 27, 2012 08:13PM
So far as the California beaches - they're probably rebuilding them thru dredging like they do down here.
Anonymous User
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 27, 2012 09:02PM
Interested,
Nice try. That opinion piece you cited doesn't even mention Tuvalu, muchless any evaculation of Tuvalu. It does mention predictions of an evacuation and the "beginning of an evacuation" of some other small atolls, the Cateret Islands, which has an elevation of 5 feet. But it's in dispute if it's the sea that's rising or if it's island subsidence (that is the land is dropping). Small islands do disappear. The Tuanaki Islands (last seen in 1842), are known to have sunk entirely and relatively suddenly for causes unrelated to global warming.

That chart was by fellow named Dr. Craig Loehle. The chart I posted above appears to have originated with this organization [www.ncasi.org] National Council for Air and Stream Improvement Here are the doctor's credentials: [www.climatewiki.org]
Anonymous User
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 27, 2012 09:08PM
Indy! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So far as the California beaches - they're
> probably rebuilding them thru dredging like they
> do down here.


Indy,
Get a grip. Florida is not sinking because of Global Warming. They are dredging down there because of erosion, not because of any rising sea level.
Quote:
While some of this erosion is due to natural forces and imprudent coastal development, a significant amount of coastal erosion in Florida is directly attributable to the construction and maintenance of navigation inlets. Florida has over 60 inlets around the state, many have been artificially deepened to accommodate commercial and recreational vessels and employ jetties to prevent sand from filling in the channels. A by-product of this practice is that the jetties and the inlet channels have interrupted the natural flow of sand along the beach causing an accumulation of sand in the inlet channel and at the jetty on one side of the inlet, and a loss of sand to the beaches on the other side of the inlet. [www.dep.state.fl.us]
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 27, 2012 09:11PM
First, Curt, I said it was not about Tuvalu. Then I said that a deputation of islanders from Tuvalu were in New Zealand and have been for a couple of years, preparing for the evacuation.

The only claim that is the islands sinking rather than sea rising was made by Morner (sp) who claimed it was because of the weight of Pineapple ,plantations. Of course, there are no pineapple plantations. Given the evidence from the IPCC and the chart I gave you, are you seriously trying to maintain that the sea level is not rising?

Next, I told you the chart was from Loehle. I told you about his "study." I told you how he developed his idiotic chart and conclusion.

Finally, your information and chart copy came from the Climate Audit site of Pat Michaels. Nobody goes to that site who is not part of the denial agenda.

At the Scopes Monkey Trial, Clarence Darrow gave a brilliant speech, but the cynical journalist H.L. Mencken told him "You may as well have shouted it up a waterspout in Outer Mongolia for all the effect it will have on your listeners ..

Ditto here.
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 27, 2012 11:12PM
Wow. Mighty defensive there, Curt. I didn't say anything about WHY they were dredging the beaches - but since you brought it up...

"Sea level is rising along most of the U.S. coast, and around the world. In the last century, sea level rose 5 to 6 inches more than the global average along the Mid-Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, because coastal lands there are subsiding."

Did you get that last part? "Coastal lands are subsiding."

sub·side   [suhb-sahyd] Show IPA
verb (used without object), -sid·ed, -sid·ing.
1. to sink to a low or lower level.

So - yes - Florida IS sinking as a matter of fact.

fact   [fakt] Show IPA
noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: smoking smiley



That's from the EPA - not Exxon...

[epa.gov]
Anonymous User
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 27, 2012 11:25PM
Indy! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow. Mighty defensive there, Curt. I didn't say
> anything about WHY they were dredging the beaches
> - but since you brought it up...
>
> "Sea level is rising along most of the U.S. coast,
> and around the world. In the last century, sea
> level rose 5 to 6 inches more than the global
> average along the Mid-Atlantic and Gulf Coasts,
> because coastal lands there are subsiding."
>
> Did you get that last part? "Coastal lands are
> subsiding."
>
> sub·side    Show IPA
> verb (used without object), -sid·ed, -sid·ing.
> 1. to sink to a low or lower level.
>
> So - yes - Florida IS sinking as a matter of
> fact.
>
> fact    Show IPA
> noun
> 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth:
> smoking smiley
>
>
>
> That's from the EPA - not Exxon...
>
> [epa.gov]
> .html


Indy,
I already mentioned subsidence in this thread. You do realize that subsidence means that the land is sinking not the water is rising, right? Subsidence is geologic phenomenon not a climate issue. I said that Florida is "not sinking because of Global Warming". Florida has a lot of reasons to be sinking, including self-inflicted environmental damage.
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 28, 2012 12:36AM
Think you misunderstood the science (again), Curt. Read it closely - if clearly says sea level is rising...

"Sea level is rising along most of the U.S. coast, and around the world"

No asterisks - no caveats about land subsiding. It goes on to then ADD that it is rising MORE SO along the mid Atlantic Gulf Coast areas because those lands are (also) subsiding...

"In the last century, sea level rose 5 to 6 inches more than the global average along the Mid-Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, because coastal lands there are subsiding."
Anonymous User
Re: Another youngster leads the way.
February 28, 2012 01:01AM
Indy,
You persist in these strawman arguments. I stated a few posts up that sea level rose 0.044 tp 0.088 inches per year over the last century (according to the IPCC, a stat which I am not questioning). Those fractional increases are hardly a catastrophe. The reason they didn't use asterisks about land subsidence, is because they say "subsiding" right there in that sentence.

By the way, the proper way to read that sentence is thus:
"In the last century, sea level rose 5 to 6 inches---more than the global average---along the Mid-Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, because coastal lands there are subsiding."
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login


Map IP Address
Powered byIP2Location.com

This forum powered by Phorum