• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal Judge: White House "Bad Faith" on Climate Data

Re: Federal Judge: White House "Bad Faith" on Climate Data

We DO know what the future holds, which is the reason your own reference only discusses sea level rise. It doesn't frame sea level as a thing that may drop, or remain stable.

And you will complain I don't know that, but I posted another reference from NOAA (probably directed at school kids- it was so basic) that was unambiguously clear that sea levels ARE and WILL rise.
We should change our opinions, when presented with new data.
With the data only up to 2011, there was no decline in sea levels,
it was not raising as fast as the satellites said, but it was not declining.
With the data now out to 2015, many of the east coast cities are showing a decline
in the sea level.
Which one of the models predicted that?
 
Re: Federal Judge: White House "Bad Faith" on Climate Data

Talk is cheap. I challenge you, oh so capable you, of writing up your concerns and arguments as a formal draft to be presented for peer-review in a respected and relevant scientific journal. Make your case where it matters. Convince others of the errors you claim to have detected. I admit I don't know Jack S**t about this subject in any competent way. I would like to learn, but I am not going to take your word for anything. I will learn from those who have demonstrated their expertise and placed their work up against the rigors of scientific scrutiny as endorsed by other experts in their fields.

Write that paper and change the status quo. The word of an internet forum participant or a biased blog site will not suffice. Sorry.

You will not get a paper saying water is wet published.

Looking at the tide guages and seeing that nowhere is the rate of sea level rise at all alarming unless the land is subsiding is easy so does not count as profound and thus cannot be published.
 
Re: Federal Judge: White House "Bad Faith" on Climate Data

Should I be my own structural engineer, architect, electrician and plumber too? Should I be able to fix all issues with my car. Should I have more confidence in my own diagnosis of a medical problem than a trained medical professional?

This "think for yourself" thing is ridiculous on it's very face. I grow very tired of hearing that phrase from people who believe they are so smart and knowledgeable....usually political conservatives. It's ridiculous and it's DANGEROUS.

No you should not.

But if the plumber arrives to fix a dripping tap and then tells you that it will require all of your pipes to be replaced at a cost of $100,000 you should be able to spot a rip off.
 
Re: Federal Judge: White House "Bad Faith" on Climate Data

No you should not.

But if the plumber arrives to fix a dripping tap and then tells you that it will require all of your pipes to be replaced at a cost of $100,000 you should be able to spot a rip off.

Fine, and I would then seek a second opinion and look for a better price. Maybe all the pipes do need to be replaced. My father-in-law saw the family doctor for a sore knee ( the drip ) and ended up dying of cancer 6 months later.

The rising sea couldn’t care less if we spend anything or not. It's going to rise regardless. The jet streams couldn't care less if we spend lots of money to drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions or not. They will respond according to the various forces applied to them just as they always have for as long as there have been jet streams.

You have a choice to fix the pipes or not. You have a choice to listen to science and address the issue or to ignore it. It's your choice to believe in an international scientific conspiracy to hoodwink the public for personal gain. I say we spend the $100,000 on clean energy RND and deployment rather than continuing to invest in coal. I say we invest in a new smart electrical grid to take full advantage of the decentralized nature of clean energy. I say we spend money on trying to reduce CO2 emissions rather than having to build sea walls to protect coastal cities. I say we invest (spend money) on the future rather than wasting it on century old technologies.
 
Re: Federal Judge: White House "Bad Faith" on Climate Data

Fine, and I would then seek a second opinion and look for a better price. Maybe all the pipes do need to be replaced. My father-in-law saw the family doctor for a sore knee ( the drip ) and ended up dying of cancer 6 months later.

The rising sea couldn’t care less if we spend anything or not. It's going to rise regardless. The jet streams couldn't care less if we spend lots of money to drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions or not. They will respond according to the various forces applied to them just as they always have for as long as there have been jet streams.

You have a choice to fix the pipes or not. You have a choice to listen to science and address the issue or to ignore it. It's your choice to believe in an international scientific conspiracy to hoodwink the public for personal gain. I say we spend the $100,000 on clean energy RND and deployment rather than continuing to invest in coal. I say we invest in a new smart electrical grid to take full advantage of the decentralized nature of clean energy. I say we spend money on trying to reduce CO2 emissions rather than having to build sea walls to protect coastal cities. I say we invest (spend money) on the future rather than wasting it on century old technologies.

I choose to look at the science, think about it and address the issues as sensibly as possible.

I don't see any cause for alarm at all.

The sea is not and will not rise in any way which is at all ever going to be more expensive to defend against for any nation than they spend on traffic lights.
 
Re: Federal Judge: White House "Bad Faith" on Climate Data

I say we spend money on trying to reduce CO2 emissions rather than having to build sea walls to protect coastal cities. I say we invest (spend money) on the future rather than wasting it on century old technologies.
Sea levels will rise or fall regardless of human CO2 emissions, Even if we stopped all emissions today, the sea level will likely continue to rise
as it has for almost 200 years.
P.S. the old records like Battery park and Brest France, do not show any acceleration since the CO2 level starting going up,
So why would you think reducing CO2 emissions would have an effect of sea levels?
If sea walls need to be built, they will be needed no matter what our CO2 emissions are!
 
Re: Federal Judge: White House "Bad Faith" on Climate Data

Sea levels will rise or fall regardless of human CO2 emissions, Even if we stopped all emissions today, the sea level will likely continue to rise
as it has for almost 200 years.
P.S. the old records like Battery park and Brest France, do not show any acceleration since the CO2 level starting going up,
So why would you think reducing CO2 emissions would have an effect of sea levels?
If sea walls need to be built, they will be needed no matter what our CO2 emissions are!

We agree that the sea walls will need to be built regardless. It can take hundreds of years for ice melt to stabilize with temperature. The point of contention though is the degree to which the seas will eventually rise and at what rates. The higher the temperature gets the higher will be the eventual sea levels. The ice is now melting as a consequence of past temperature increase and further warming will only lengthen the time and rate at which it melts.
 
Re: Federal Judge: White House "Bad Faith" on Climate Data

We agree that the sea walls will need to be built regardless. It can take hundreds of years for ice melt to stabilize with temperature. The point of contention though is the degree to which the seas will eventually rise and at what rates. The higher the temperature gets the higher will be the eventual sea levels. The ice is now melting as a consequence of past temperature increase and further warming will only lengthen the time and rate at which it melts.

Do you realize how little a temperature change of a few degrees affects sublimation, when already as cold as it is?

Care to show us the math, or are you just parroting the pundit alarmists?
 
Re: Federal Judge: White House "Bad Faith" on Climate Data

We agree that the sea walls will need to be built regardless. It can take hundreds of years for ice melt to stabilize with temperature. The point of contention though is the degree to which the seas will eventually rise and at what rates. The higher the temperature gets the higher will be the eventual sea levels. The ice is now melting as a consequence of past temperature increase and further warming will only lengthen the time and rate at which it melts.
So far the observed warming and the sea level do not seem to be in tune with each other.
The average warming has increased (in winter evenings), but the pace of sea level rise is unchanged.
 
Back
Top Bottom