Alfa Romeo Forums banner

2541 - 2560 of 2954 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,761 Posts
I'm not a huge fan of CNN or any cable news, but I challenge you to find anything they've broadcast predicting that Manhattan will be uninhabitable during the term of their lease. By all means, attack people for what they've actually said, but the global warming deniers are charging at windmills here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,025 Posts
I'm not a huge fan of CNN or any cable news, but I challenge you to find anything they've broadcast predicting that Manhattan will be uninhabitable during the term of their lease. By all means, attack people for what they've actually said, but the global warming deniers are charging at windmills here.
My comment was about CNN but...

Yes, Al Gore (who I am also not a big fan of) did predict portions of Manhattan would go under water if the Greenland ice caps melt - that hasn’t happened yet, though there are signs it’s on its way. But most large commercial leases are around 20 years, and I’ve seen no predictions from Gore or CNN indicating Manhattan would be underwater in anything line that time frame.

And even if it were true that sea level would eventually be above much of Manhattan, the real estate is so valuable that dykes would be constructed Dutch style even if it were well below sea level.

In any event- people here are still twisting words and hanging on the most inflamatory statments ad evidence that all scientific forecasts are wrong. I’ve many times in this thread encouraged going to primary sources and citing peer reviewed research.

Nobody can be bothered. They prefer to argue about CNN and Al Gore.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,598 Posts
So we all should quiver in fear about the world ending, but CNN should only worry if it is 'during their lease'.
Ha, ha. Good one!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
462 Posts
I'm not a huge fan of CNN or any cable news, but I challenge you to find anything they've broadcast predicting that Manhattan will be uninhabitable during the term of their lease. By all means, attack people for what they've actually said, but the global warming deniers are charging at windmills here.
This is way too easy. Of course CNN itself doesn't make predictions, even they aren't so deluded to imagine they are qualified to do that; what they do is aggressively promote a one-sided narrative, exclusively citing those who ARE deluded enough to imagine they are qualified to make dire predictions about climate change (here's a challenge; I challenge you to find a CNN piece treating a "skeptic"/realist like Judith Curry or Richard Lindzen sympathetically). Here is a list of alarmist CNN stories about rising sea levels from just from the last two years.

Oct 12, 2017: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/07/12/us/weather-cities-inundated-climate-change/index.html

Excerpt: "A new study lists the cities that are expected to be affected by higher sea levels...Almost 200 places may not be livable in the next 15 or 20 years, it says...Featuring places like New York, Boston, San Francisco and Miami, the list paints a grim picture of what our nation could look like if sea level predictions are accurate."

Oct 27, 2017: https://www-m.cnn.com/2017/10/27/us/climate-change-new-york-city-floods-study/index.html?r=https://www.google.com/

"In the coming years, New York City might look less like a concrete jungle and more like a concrete swamp. The Big Apple could see a surge in significant floods every five years between 2030 and 2045 as an impact of climate change, according to a study published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."

March 7, 2018: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/03/07/us/noaa-sea-level-rise-report/index.html

"As sea levels rise due to global warming, the kind of flooding currently experienced only in storms will happen during normal high tides. It's known as "sunny day flooding...By 2050, high-tide flooding would occur up to 130 days a year in cities along the Northeast Atlantic coastline..."

June 18, 2018: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/06/18/us/sea-level-rise-ucs-projections-wxc/index.html

"As many as 311,000 homes in US coastal areas could be underwater within the next 30 years, according to a recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists...Those startling numbers echo a 2017 report from the same group that said between 165 and 180 communities are projected to become "chronically inundated" in the next 15 to 20 years -- and between 270 and 360 in roughly the next 40 years...New York and New Jersey combined could lose nearly 400,000 homes and more than $200 billion in decreased property value."

April 22, 2019: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/04/22/world/greenland-sea-level-rise-scn/index.html

"Forty percent to 50% of the planet's population is in cities that are vulnerable to sea rise...Without serious efforts to curb carbon emissions and slow climate change, ice loss could become a much bigger problem for the country and for us."

There's a lot more I just got tired of copying and pasting. Clearly, according to this narrative, New York is potentially in a lot of trouble, as early as 2030! But the length of CNN's lease isn't really the point. For years we've been told that the fact that complying with the Kyoto Protocols and the Paris Accords, and building bird-chopping windmills, etc. won't actually accomplish any meaningful is beside the point, it's about setting an example, about leading the way...it's about gestures/optics. So what does CNN do while promoting every story about the pending climate disaster due to hit New York? They move their corporate offices to the banks of the Hudson River. Whatever that says about what they actually believe, it says a lot about what they preach.

Last note, speaking of windmills, if alarmists were sincere about their climate change fears they should be pushing hard for nuclear power, but with very few exceptions, none are. That tells me they are either insincere or not at all bright. Either is a reason not to listen to them. Personally, I'm not skeptical about the possibility of long-term effects of increased CO2 on polar ice -- CO2 has an influence where the atmosphere holds very little water vapor (not much anywhere else though) -- and think that a shift away from carbon emissions over time would be wise. The only way to do this realistically is to transition to nuclear power where we are now burning coal and gas, transitioning to gas as a bridge where we are now burning coal. I don't hear this from the climate alarmism lobby though. Instead it seems to be only about taxes and prohibitions on coal or gas powerplants, ICE transportation, number of children, etc. etc. IOW, a dystopian h*llhole if they ever got power and their way, all in the name of a hypothetical threat to future humans living along coastlines, a threat that moves so slowly that developers keep building along coastlines, insurance companies keep insuring new construction along coastlines, and corporations like CNN keep putting down stakes along coastlines. I'm just having a hard time seeing why I need to pay more taxes, give up ICE cars, and feel guilty for having kids, while Jeff Zucker enjoys his waterfront view from his luxury office suite (while no doubt commuting in some big black SUV).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
101 Posts
"Instead it seems to be only about taxes and prohibitions on coal or gas powerplants, ICE transportation, number of children, etc. etc."

Yes, if we will only knuckle under and give politicians our money and faith, they will save us. Then, in another 10-20 years, after there is no coastal flooding, they can tell us that all of the the freedoms of choice and money that we gave to them worked to save the planet, and they alone had the knowledge, foresight and intelligence to save us all. Brilliant and ambitious, at least as far as scams go.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
Step away from the politics.

If you just look at this from the point of view that fossil fuels are a finite resource, you can see where we need to go. The earth may be able to replenish fossil fuels, but not on any timeline that humans would benefit from. We will deplete our fossil fuels one day.

The most intelligent solution then is to prepare for that day by developing an energy source that is capable of sustaining our needs on this planet. If we wait until our current primary energy source is completely depleted, we could end up in a situation where the next energy source is more difficult, if not impossible to develop. Beginning the process of research and develop while we still have our primary source is the best option. To fight against new, renewable energy is nothing more than supporting those that benefit the most from fossil fuels.

Step away from politics, see the problem, find the solution for the future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,598 Posts
We would have no problem if all of the people telling the rest of us to change would do it themselves. I mean, if it is so dire, why are they still driving, using plastics, having children
Show us how well it works and we might follow....
in 12 years! ;^)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
101 Posts
The differences between dictators and leaders is simple to observe. Dictators order others to do things that they themselves do not really believe, and then do whatever they please. Leaders really believe what they tell others to do, and lead the way by example.

It would be interesting to get the life choices of all of the politicians and "scientists" who are heading up the Man-caused climate change agenda. My guess is that we would find that they do not practice what they preach. If you want to know the truth about anything, do not listen to what a man says, but look at what he does. You know the man by what he does.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
462 Posts
Everyone here is just talking politics. I suppose science is just too hard to debate.
We can debate science. I'll put up sane counsel of Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke Jr., and Freeman Dyson up against any five scientists who you think best frames the valid argument, as you see it.

We can also debate the effectiveness of the commonly-proposed "Green" solutions, as opposed to say, the increased use of nuclear power, in combating the theoretical existential threat of CO2.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,138 Posts
Everyone here is just talking politics. I suppose science is just too hard to debate.

Discussing the veracity of predictions for events happening 12 or 100 years in the future is most decidedly not science. At best we're talking about political dogmas. At worst we're talking about magical thinking. Just claiming that something is scientific doesn't mean that it is.

Last time I checked prediction is still inversely proportionate to time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,025 Posts
We can debate science. I'll put up sane counsel of Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke Jr., and Freeman Dyson up against any five scientists who you think best frames the valid argument, as you see it.

We can also debate the effectiveness of the commonly-proposed "Green" solutions, as opposed to say, the increased use of nuclear power, in combating the theoretical existential threat of CO2.
Debating science has nothing to do with personalities, unless those people wish to post in this thread. Rather, the propositions at issue are two fold:

1) Whether the earth is, in the aggregate, warming
2) Whether that warming trend is fully or partially caused by human emissions of C02.

Rather than talk about personalities or policies, a healthy debate would present evidence for or against those two propositions. And such evidence should be supported by independent research (not just a critique of the research of others).

I have no beef with nuclear power. To the contrary, I think it's a tragedy that nuclear incidents have prevented further development of nuclear power. The anti-nuclear movement has ironically made nuclear power less safe, by preventing newer and safer designs from coming online and upping the cost of new plants.

I'm also not categorically anti fossil fuel. I make my livelihood in the fossil fuel industry and post in a car forum! It needs to be recognized that, global warming or no, all forms of energy generation have environmental and human impact. But energy is essential to humanity thriving. Even if we disagree on climate change, I think we can agree that a robust energy mix is important.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,025 Posts
Discussing the veracity of predictions for events happening 12 or 100 years in the future is most decidedly not science. At best we're talking about political dogmas. At worst we're talking about magical thinking. Just claiming that something is scientific doesn't mean that it is.

Last time I checked prediction is still inversely proportionate to time.
Not necessarily. For example, science can predict to a very high degree of confidence where a celestial body will be in 10, 100, or even 1,000 years time. There are a lot of complex variables even with something as seemingly simple as a planet's orbit, but most of them are known and can be modeled.

Of course, modeling of something as complex as climate is far from perfect. But that doesn't mean its a futile or non-scientific endeavor so long as it proceeds with the scientific method. There was a time when predicting the track of hurricanes more than a day or two out was essentially futile. As modeling has improved, it's now possible to have a very good idea of the track even 4-5 days out.

While weather isn't climate, I would look at climate change forecasts similarly to weather forecasts. They aren't useless, but just because a model predicts a certain amount of warming or sea level rise doesn't mean that it will happen in the amount or on the timeline the model predicted. But that also doesn't mean its wise to ignore them- just as you shouldn't ignore a model telling you a hurricane may be coming. Models are by their very nature probabilistic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
462 Posts
Debating science has nothing to do with personalities, unless those people wish to post in this thread. Rather, the propositions at issue are two fold:

1) Whether the earth is, in the aggregate, warming
2) Whether that warming trend is fully or partially caused by human emissions of C02.

Rather than talk about personalities or policies, a healthy debate would present evidence for or against those two propositions. And such evidence should be supported by independent research (not just a critique of the research of others).

I have no beef with nuclear power. To the contrary, I think it's a tragedy that nuclear incidents have prevented further development of nuclear power. The anti-nuclear movement has ironically made nuclear power less safe, by preventing newer and safer designs from coming online and upping the cost of new plants.

I'm also not categorically anti fossil fuel. I make my livelihood in the fossil fuel industry and post in a car forum! It needs to be recognized that, global warming or no, all forms of energy generation have environmental and human impact. But energy is essential to humanity thriving. Even if we disagree on climate change, I think we can agree that a robust energy mix is important.
What I'm suggesting has nothing to do with personalities, it has to do with weighing the arguments of people who know much more about the science than you or I, I am sure. If we were to discuss opposing positions on Quantum Physics, we'd have to argue the positions of people who actually understand Quantum Physics.

I think your propositions are completely inadequate. I agree the Earth is warming -- it has been since before the Industrial Revolution. I also assent to the possibility or even likelihood that we are accelerating the warming. So we agree so far as that gets us, I suppose. Beyond that you have questions about policy and the degree to which one accepts the model-based predictions (usually alarmist predictions).

Re science, good science is able to make predictions which are verifiable; almost all the predictions based on the warming models have a woeful record of verification/accuracy. It's really ridiculous with how every missed prediction there's a belated acknowledgment that some of the assumptions must have been wrong but "we'll get it right next time." Freeman Dyson's criticism of alarmism rests on two things: the inherent inaccuracy and unreliability of these models as predictive tools (for example, they either ignore or downplay feedback mechanisms), and the over valuation of the negative impact of increased CO2 on the environment. Rather, he maintains, the biosphere benefits greatly from increased CO2.

Also, re predictions, I think your use of orbital mechanics as an analogy, even a loose analogy, is really misplaced. I work at the place that built and flew the New Horizons spacecraft. We have posters on the wall from 2006 predicting the date and time of the 2015 Pluto flyby to the second, literally. I think the actual flyby was within a couple seconds of the predicted time. At any rate, we understand orbital mechanics with great precision and can predict intercepts with orbiting objects to an almost unbelievable accuracy. Climate models are NOTHING like that. I imagine only the Drake Equation is more sensitive to unknown variables.

I agree with your comments on nuclear power. It's been hobbled by policy, not what has been achievable technologically. Gen 4 nuclear power promises safe power. Hopefully, we can achieve the something like what was promised by the Integral Fast Reactor, before it was cancelled by Clinton at the behest of Hazel O'Leary and climate alarmist John Kerry (how's that for irony) based on specious and inaccurate arguments.
 

·
Certified Oldschooler
Joined
·
7,012 Posts
Debating science has nothing to do with personalities, unless those people wish to post in this thread. Rather, the propositions at issue are two fold:

1) Whether the earth is, in the aggregate, warming
2) Whether that warming trend is fully or partially caused by human emissions of C02.
That is fine in theory for Greek debate. But the discussion does not end there. With an engineering background, I'd add:
3) And if so, what are the significant deleterious impacts/consequences, and,
4) What can we PRACTICALLY do about it if actually needed, with emphasis on PRACTICALLY.

In fact the degree of uncertainty grows with each stage. You have to define a problem, the cause, and the effects before you can even discuss solutions and we can't even finalize facts on # 1 more than a fraction of a degree C.

Not to say we should not evaluate using SOUND science, and be vigilant, but the dire predictions of the world ending - even for sea slugs who don;t get the joke - is beyond the pale stupid. None yet have panned out but of course they were proffered by charlatans who made a fool of the practice. Ready, fire, aim. In it s current state, AGCC is as much cultural, sociological and political as anything else. And it needs to be studied and understood from those disciplines as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,025 Posts
Debating science has nothing to do with personalities, unless those people wish to post in this thread. Rather, the propositions at issue are two fold:

1) Whether the earth is, in the aggregate, warming
2) Whether that warming trend is fully or partially caused by human emissions of C02.
That is fine in theory for Greek debate. But the discussion does not end there. With an engineering background, I'd add:
3) And if so, what are the significant deleterious impacts/consequences, and,
4) What can we PRACTICALLY do about it if actually needed, with emphasis on PRACTICALLY.

In fact the degree of uncertainty grows with each stage. You have to define a problem, the cause, and the effects before you can even discuss solutions and we can't even finalize facts on # 1 1/2.

Not to say we should not evaluate using SOUND science, and be vigilant but the dire predictions of the world ending - even for sea slugs - is beyond the pale stupid. None have panned out but of course they were proffered by charlatans. Ready, fire, aim. In it s current state, AGCC is as much cultural, sociological and political as anything else. And it needs to be studied and understood from those disciplines as well.
I actually agree that this is primarily an engineering problem, and I said exactly that in this thread.

What I object to is the presentation of the chicken littles as if they are the only voices saying that AGW is happening and are the only ones presenting solutions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
Here in California it seems like global cooling. We have had the coldest and most rainy winter in many years. In May we rarely get rain, but now it is still in the forecast.... I won't comment on the science behind the claims on climate change. There is NOTHING any single nation can do to to alter world climate at this point in time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,025 Posts
Here in California it seems like global cooling. We have had the coldest and most rainy winter in many years. In May we rarely get rain, but now it is still in the forecast.... I won't comment on the science behind the claims on climate change. There is NOTHING any single nation can do to to alter world climate at this point in time.
The weather in any single location isn’t particularly relevant- especially when you are talking a single season. The Arctic had record warmth this winter even though it was cold in your particular location.

It’s true that a single country can’t fix anything by itself. Hence global diplomatic efforts like the Paris climate accords.
 
2541 - 2560 of 2954 Posts
Top