Rising sea levels are going to mess with the internet
rob at invaluement.com
Mon Jul 23 10:54:57 UTC 2018
On 7/23/2018 3:55 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 at 05:55, Rob McEwen <rob at invaluement.com> wrote:
>> Meanwhile, global warming
>> alarmists have ALREADY made MANY dire predictions about oceans levels
>> rising - that ALREADY didn't even come close to true.
> Now this discussion does not belong to NANOG
Yes - sad isn't it - that someone else brought this up.
> but 'global warming
> alarmist' is worrying term to me. What is the perceived harm you're
> trying to reduce? Are the acts which try to address the problem the
> harm you'd like to see avoided?
Anytime a "big solution" is applied to a "small problem" (or
non-existent problem), problems arise. At the least, mis-allocation of
resources can cause situations where other important issues fail to get
addressed when the small problem gets an over-allocation of resources.
(and real peoples' lives get damaged in the process)
> Much in same way, compelling majority of scientists (>95%) believe in
> human caused global warming
Your ">95%" is MORE junk science. The popular percentage to throw out is
"97%" - as quoted by Obama and many others - this came from 2013 paper
by John Cook - that was so incredibly and dishonestly flawed as to
basically be unscientific propaganda. (1) many scientists' papers were
falsely classified and (2) he did a "bait and switch" where he "read
into" certain papers stuff that wasn't really there.
Real science makes "risky predictions" and then is willing to redo the
hypothesis when those predictions don't happen as predicted. In
contrast, junk science stubbornly sticks to preconceived biases even
when the data continually fails to validate the hypothesis (which is
happening here!). The fact that you're so quick to try your "appeal to
authority" with that fake ">95%" percentage - and you don't seem to
understand that a mis-allocation of resources based on junk science is
NOT a victim-less crime (so to speak - not technically a crime - but
REAL people ARE damaged by this) - undermines your credibility.
Tell you what, I'll admit that I might be wrong the first time that we
see a 5+mm per year average of sea level rising over a 5 year period.
HINT: We won't. For example, look at the blue line at the end of this
"scary graph" from a "climage change" site that has your same viewpoint:
- as scary as that chart looks like at first glance - it shows
little-to-no *acceleration* - the rate of increase holds steady at 3.5
mm/year - BUT HERE IS THE INTERESTING PART: even this pro-climate change
site's own graph shows that the sea levels have failed to rise AT ALL
over the past couple of years.
But 15 years from now, we'll see new rounds of NEW dire predictions
about alarming FUTURE sea level risings that are allegedly just around
More information about the NANOG