Climate Change Puts Buildings, Coastlines, The North At Most Risk: Report Extreme wea

[AlbertaFarmer5]

DML, You took all the time and effort to debunk the anecdotal story about a fox, can you put The same effort into answering the question about natural versus human caused sealevel rise please?

[malleefarmer]

Quack quack

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12096103/Humans-could-evolve-webbed-feet-if-sea-levels-rise-scientist-claims.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12096103/Humans-could-evolve-webbed-feet-if-sea-levels-rise-scientist-claims.html

[jazz]

Climate change will be exposed for the scam it is within the next few yrs. Hope DML will have enough humility to come back at that time and admit it was all a hoax created to enslave us to a perpetual shame tax that wasnt real. Going to be a lot of people feeling like fools.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

DML, now that we have found some common ground, can you address my previous question.

I'll even reword it in simpler terms.

If I set up my redneck mobile home so the floor is exactly 1 foot above high tide today, in what year will I have to add a few more blocks under the wheels due to natural sea level rise, and how much sooner will my shag carpeting and Jeff Foxworthy DVD collection get reliably wet due to the human component of sea level rise?
And what are the confidence levels for those estimates, and have they been back tested with observable measurements?

[farmaholic]

And that is the UN's own survey, not some evil denier, Chuck loves to call on the authority of the UN over anyone else, but last time I posted this same info, he was suspiciously quiet about it. Apparently when you have no drinking water, no electricity, not sure where your next meal will come from, questionable healthcare, corrupt governments and police and very few opportunities for education, the abstract notion of global warming is not high on your priority list. Only those of us in the first world have the luxury of concerning ourselves with such things.

Well said.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Wow! That is a great site, okay cultists, SEE ONLY politicians/Scientists think shit will happen. We the people of earth DO NOT agree! ha ha

And that is the UN's own survey, not some evil denier, Chuck loves to call on the authority of the UN over anyone else, but last time I posted this same info, he was suspiciously quiet about it. Apparently when you have no drinking water, no electricity, not sure where your next meal will come from, questionable healthcare, corrupt governments and police and very few opportunities for education, the abstract notion of global warming is not high on your priority list. Only those of us in the first world have the luxury of concerning ourselves with such things.

[fjlip]

Yes, but that is just Canadians, and we are cold, heartless first world monsters who don't care about the third world countries who will bear the brunt of the coming climate apocalypse. Please refer to the UN study ranking peoples priorities all over the world:

http://data.myworld2015.org/ http://data.myworld2015.org/

[ATTACH]4508[/ATTACH]

Oops, except the rest of the world also ranks climate change as dead last. In fact, I checked through, and all the poster children countries for catastrophic global warming rank it dead last or very close. Only Sweden gave it somewhat of a priority, because we all know they will suffer the worst of the damage from more benign weather...

Wow! That is a great site, okay cultists, SEE ONLY politicians/Scientists think shit will happen. We the people of earth DO NOT agree! ha ha

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I totally disagree with these watered down assessments. Most scientific research of non commercial value is conducted by govt institutions and academia which are supported by govts. Of course its politicized. Any study that comes out of those places is highly suspect as is all the climate change data.

Most of these scientists exist on the benevolence of public tax funds. They are socialist by nature. Thye have no job or purpose without those funds and making up climate data is the surest way to access funds off a politicized agenda. Why go do original research when you cna ride the multi decade scam. I imagine these guys look at their funding apps and say I can either submit something to watch a mouse for 10yrs, or I can ride the climate funding. Many of the so called scientists expanded their areas to cover the effects of climate change on whatever. So you will have a scientist who studies who knows what, algae or something, but then they will submit their funding app with the title The Effects of Climate Change on Algae and boom, approved. That's where the 97% of scientists agree fact comes from. Most of that group aren't even atmospheric scientists yet they agree with climate change.

Stop putting scientists on some pedestal. They are human. They exibit the same self interest as any group does.

Jazz, it is certainly unethical to make a GIGO study about the effects of climate change on algae or the three toed sloth, but not dishonest. There are a lot of honest and ethical scientists out there blowing the whistle on the truly unethical lately, mostly in regards to the climate change industry. Look at the success Peter Ridd is having in Australia. The tide is slowly turning, and many are going from quietly turning a blind eye to the likes of Micheal Mann, to taking active opposition to such actions that denigrate their profession.

[jazz]

I totally disagree with these watered down assessments. Most scientific research of non commercial value is conducted by govt institutions and academia which are supported by govts. Of course its politicized. Any study that comes out of those places is highly suspect as is all the climate change data.

Most of these scientists exist on the benevolence of public tax funds. They are socialist by nature. Thye have no job or purpose without those funds and making up climate data is the surest way to access funds off a politicized agenda. Why go do original research when you cna ride the multi decade scam. I imagine these guys look at their funding apps and say I can either submit something to watch a mouse for 10yrs, or I can ride the climate funding. Many of the so called scientists expanded their areas to cover the effects of climate change on whatever. So you will have a scientist who studies who knows what, algae or something, but then they will submit their funding app with the title The Effects of Climate Change on Algae and boom, approved. That's where the 97% of scientists agree fact comes from. Most of that group aren't even atmospheric scientists yet they agree with climate change.

Stop putting scientists on some pedestal. They are human. They exibit the same self interest as any group does.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Exactly. There should not be any politics in science. And contrary to your comment earlier where you said" "You and DML keep insisting that science is incorruptible and your climate scientists can't be bought and paid for..." I never once claimed that. Likely everyone has a price, including scientists. (I think, hope, believe, my price is higher than the value I would ever be to anyone!) But because Mann fudged??? the hockey stick graph does not mean all climate change supporting scientists are on the take any more than the errors Lindzen made and the refusal of a recognized peer review journal to publish so he had it placed in a little known Korean journal means all questioners of climate change are oil funded lobbyists.

That is why I feel it is so important to provide sources for any "facts" published on the internet. It allows people to actually judge the quality of the information presented. Anyone can say or post anything, but unless we know from where and who that "fact" came from, it really is just "he said she said" and instead of increasing actual knowledge it may just be mistakenly or worse yet intentionally misleading which is exactly the problem you describe.

I may have confused what you and Chuck said, and for no one deserves to be confused with Chuck, for that I apologize.

I also expect that nearly all climate scientists, and those on the periphery are honest, and not influenced by money, fame or power. If the three toed sloth scientist does a study on what effect climate change will have on the three toed sloth's habitat, no one expects him/her to first prove and verify that the climate models are correct, no, they start out with the premise that RCP 8.5 is a viable and probable scenario because some other scientist created it, then they base all their projections on that. In the end, since RCP 8.5 isn't even remotely plausible, it ends up being Garbage In= Garbage Out, but there is nothing sinister in it on their part, they are only applying the garbage to their own area of expertise.