Here's a hint for you.. The zoologist in question IS the journalist in question.
George Monbiot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Clear now?
So who's doing the scamming then? Nature or is it the aliens?
Clear now?
Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
- Status
Here's a hint for you.. The zoologist in question IS the journalist in question.
George Monbiot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Clear now?
So who's doing the scamming then? Nature or is it the aliens?
Clear now?
Cool. Thanks for clearing it up. No-one's right all the time.
Climate change deniers, obviously.
If you notice the big picture here: http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7y.html you might see that a couple of the things that influence climate change are atmospheric chemistry and atmospheric reflectivity. We can change the first one directly and the second, indirectly.
Yes Anna posted these awhile back.
We have had storm surges and abnormal high tides and abnormal low tides. Some of our low coastal roads get washed out. Folks take all kinds of photos and we say "Holy COW!"
But in the end, the water recedes and we are back to normal.
:roll: Do you recall what "abnormal" means?
Here's more:
http://flood.firetree.net/
Right at the top it says "North America" then if you dbl click FL the map scoots to the FL area.
That's pretty neat.
But aren't you adding the rise of sea level yourself?
It was set at +7M when you sent it and so much of the coast was under water. However I reset it to 0 M and there you are. That is how it looks today.
Storm surges, neap tides and other reasons.
They are not common at all and very rarely does a road get washed out.
I thought so.
Nope. It was like that when I arrived at the URL.
And how it looks today is different than in 1975:
Florida and the Gulf of Mexico, 1975
I did not mean you specifically, I meant anyone can adjust the sea levels in that link and see what it the map would look like IF the sea levels were at the chosen level.
I would guess Daytona Beach et all looks pretty much the same today as it did in 1975.
Pretty much the same? A lot like it used to be? I look pretty much the same as I did in 1975, too. I'm not, though.
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/sea-level-rise.jpg
And the rate of rise is increasing.
Last edited:
Well erosion and new construction often modifies our coastal areas. If I was to say EXACTLY like it did you could possibly produce a pic showing an area that was washed away. Then I could show you the coast of Dubai. Mother Nature surely didn't create all that. I could show you old pictures of Boston and the Back Bay.
The Back Bay was exactly that, the bay at the back of Boston. Now it is a high rent district.
Castle Island in South Boston is NOT surrounded by water on all sides. Why are they calling it an island when it isn't? Well it was before they put tens of thousands of tons of landfill between the mainland and island.
Do you have a crystal ball? You have no idea what Monbiot has based his opinions on. Let alone any debunked science. Why don't you post some instead of talking about it? Are you capable? I'll be giving you some references in one moment.
So give us one then. Specifically, and tell us what you think it debunks.
Bull plop. We have a very good idea. Attribution studies time and again, have consistently found the anthropogenic signal. Further, there is no competing explanation that can satisfy the points I gave to you earlier, which I note you did not respond to.
So here's some references for you. See if you can debunk them, or give us a source that has specifically debunked them:
http://www.philosophicalturn.net/CMI/Environment/Nature_Attributing_Anthropogenic_Climate_Change.pdf
http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~mnew/teaching/Online_Articles/stott_regional_attribution_GRL_2003.pdf
Science/AAAS | Science Magazine: Sign In
From the Cover: Human-modified temperatures induce species changes: Joint attribution
http://www.cccma.ec.gc.ca/papers/ngillett/PDFS/matthewsetal2004.pdf
http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/geography/homes/ghegerl/hegerletal97.pdf
These are all attribution studies. You need to perform these studies to determine causality. Essentially they are experiments.
No, that is what the literature says. This is what the scientists have found. Your attempts to dismiss the many works by thousands of scientists is what gave rise to the word "denier" in all this mess. You deny what has been found by science.
Is it faith? Do you have anything besides faith which you can use to dismiss these studies?
If so, lets hear it.
The floor is yours.
"Florida has always been right at sea level. Serious question here. If Tavalu is drowning...why isn't Florida?"
That is a good question, have to answer it with another question. Why will New York City, Boston and London flood before Miami will? Sea level is not uniform around the world?
I have a differnt theory about sea level changing, it's doing to fall not rise due to one Mother of an earth quake which will leave a huge crack in the ocean floor which will suck up more water than Lake Superiour.
Had you bothered to listen to the discussion, you'd understand that it doesn't take a crystal ball to determine where Monbiot developed his ideas. He parroted the faulty and fraudulent rhetoric issued by the IPCC and UN verbatim.
It's not my responsibility to prove a negative (in this case). Seeing how my position is that what we are experiencing is part of a natural reoccurring cycle, how about we start with these.
Climate Timeline Tool: Summary of 100,000 Years
Ice Age
What are the Major Ice Ages of the Earth's History?
Except for the pesky times (multiple) where there was no possibility of an anthropogenic signal as there were no people around.... So, while I understand that there are "no competing explanations" - do you pro-global warming folks still find a manner in which to blame humanity?... Dr. Who and his trusty Tardis perhaps?
"The Scientists"? This entire debate is chalk-full of scientific opinion that represent the entire range of opinion, models, and yes - results. Defaulting to the position of "prove me wrong" is no longer an acceptable practice, there are simply too many theories, studies and findings to warrant this demand, particularly in light of the documented frauds, misrepresentations and politics.
The reality is this. At some point, a group/individual will forward a theory - with real and tangible proof to support it - that will end this discussion for once and all.
Yes I do.
- The admissions of the IPCC and UN relative to the errors fundamental to their core position.
- The climate modeling fiasco's wherein the scientists admitted to jerry-rigging their models to yield their desired results.
- The East Anglia fiasco that debumked the peer-review process let alone the unethical and unprofessional approach they have maintained for many years.
- The admission of the "scientist" that authored the paper that suggested that the Himalayan galciers would vanish within a decade was not based on anything but unsubstantiated opinion.
- The UN's declaration that "the science" has determined that the Amazon rainforest would be decimated when it was a skewed paper forwarded by Green Peace (and not scientific let alone peer reviewed even by the IPCC's bisaed standards).
I can dismiss all of these studies out of hand, because everyone of them fail to take into consideration the real driver of the planets climate, electricity. If you deny the electrical nature of the sun and its variability you miss the picture entirely. Your data is entirely incomplete, and entirely incorrect in its assumptions. You can continue to pretend that the present religion known as climate science is in any way connected with the real picture, but guess what, the planet is going to continue to cool untill or if the suns energy varies upward, it's as simple as that. Get used to it, the dumb idea of anthropocentricly induced warming or cooling or any noticable temperature change human induced is way off base. In fact it is baseless alltogether and not supported by the facts. Not one shred of evidence exists, what you're selling is a commercial oportunity and nothing else.
- Status