fred smith wrote:Fred, as I mentioned in the previous discussion, if you're going to argue this, at least do some research as to the basics of science, the purpose of IPCC, scientific method. I'll add to that that you should also take the time to learn what weather is and what climate is.
It is now 2012. Sea level predictions are mostly for 2100, some for 2050. Why do you keep harping on about sea level rises now? And keep talking about people who seem to think we need to be seeing massive rises today to prove something? You say "you can live with it" but you don't know what a 0.5m rise will actually mean for the world, do you? You say action is not urgent, completely overlooking the fact that it's action now that will mitigate future consequences.
so, your final word is that there are no sealevel increases NOW and therefore rather than refute Morner/Gray, you now agree with their assessments?
And in the likely scenario the rises are 0.3 to 0.5 are they not? so why focus on the 0.5? more alarmism even at the low end of the alarmism? and have we not faced similar increases and adapted?
Finally, what action do you propose taking to solve this possible problem? how much will it cost and please cite studies to show us where past similar efforts have led to any appreciable benefit. Thanks.
It's pretty simple, if the ice in Antartica and Greenland starts melting then you will get a major rise in sea levels, even if the whole of the Artic ice melted there would be no rise in sea levels. But arctic ice melting is a bad sign in itself.
bob wrote:Southern Europe got where it is by allowing the extremely rich to avoid paying taxes and by paying a lot of government employees too much for too little and borrowing the money to do that from the countries it had farmed it's manufacturing out to. They are trying to solve it by imposing austerity measures which involved laying off large numbers of government employees. What they should have done was let them keep their jobs but with a big pay cut and made serious efforts to collect more taxes. BOTH sides contribute. Imagine that.
The US got into the situation it is in by allowing banks to grant bonuses to it's loan managers based on the number of loans MADE!!! rather than on the number succesfully managed, so they went and made loans to a bunch of dumb ass fuckers who couldn't pay them back. The banks didn't have enough reserves in the bank to make those readily available, highly advertised (you would imagine criminal) bad loans so they borrowed the money with which to make them. When the banks couldn't pay back the money they borrowed to make the bad loans things went fucko big time. Perhaps you recall. Cananda didn't derugulate the banking system the way you did and that is why our system didn't practically go tits up and need to go begging the government to bail them out (a bit ironic that last bit.)
I didn't say the world was going to end (What does that even mean?) I said that there has recently been a lot more flooding than normal and that we are going to be seeing a continuation of that trend. This started while we have been arguing here. You should do some resaerch.
The situation in England is cool. Tax payers being being forced to "pay" to have their children taught not just one lie, but different ones, each according to the psychosis of their parents. Good old George Bush and Tony Blair. Is it any wonder George never tried this...
You should watch that. Git yerself sum education.
Forumosans browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests