• 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!

Scientist say the pace of sea level rise has nearly tripled since 1990's

Winston said:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jun/28/climate-change-sceptic-willie-soon
Click to expand...

The smear of Willie Soon is about as dishonest as it gets. All funding for his research was managed by the Smithsonian Institution. And FYI: it turns out he was right about the polar bears.


[h=1]500 sign petition to Smithsonian in defense of Dr. Willie Soon – Guess Smithsonian’s answer[/h]Guest essay by H. Sterling BurnettMore than 500 scientists, colleagues, and friends of Willie Soon, Ph.D. signed a letter sent, along with accompanying supporting documents, to the Smithsonian Institution’s Board of Regents defending the award-winning solar physicist against false allegations he failed to disclose conflicts of interest in publications requiring such admissions. The letter notes…
 
Winston said:
Well, I wasn't wrong.
Click to expand...
A real question, why would the oil companies care if the IPCC's version of AGW is correct or not?
Seriously, think about the supply chain, If the Government taxes carbon, where would they tax it, and how would it effect oil company profits?
Keep in mind that the oil companies do not sell oil,they sell finished fuel products.
Any cost added by regulation, will simply be passed on to the consumer.
At some price, demand will decrease, but we are not talking about discretionary spending,
 
longview said:
A real question, why would the oil companies care if the IPCC's version of AGW is correct or not?
Seriously, think about the supply chain, If the Government taxes carbon, where would they tax it, and how would it effect oil company profits?
Keep in mind that the oil companies do not sell oil,they sell finished fuel products.
Any cost added by regulation, will simply be passed on to the consumer.
At some price, demand will decrease, but we are not talking about discretionary spending,
Click to expand...

Well, if AGW is proven true, and it's proven that say, Exxon was aware of it and not only failed to act, but, contributed to scientists willing to publish denialist studies..

couldn't we come back on them for financial restitution when the **** hits the fan?

To answer your question more directly, if the government passes a carbon tax, that makes solar and wind, more competitive, they lose money.

Why don't you think the Kochs and Exxon have invested heavily in Research and development for alternative energy themselves? It's not because there's no opportunity and not a buck to be made. It's because they don't want to be forced to compete with anyone else. They're already the kings of their market.
 
Winston said:
So, the Kochs don't do everything that I showed you they do. Unbelievable. I KO'd your entire argument with one wikipedia link. And you can't accept that you're wrong. I'm not dragging an argument about the Kochs out because you can't accept this logic:

Since the Koch brothers make billions of dollars in oil and gas and they fund propaganda think tanks that disseminate misleading information and they fund politicians that vote against Climate Change, then they are standing in the way of progress. They are preventing public policy from happening. The Koch brothers are one example. Ken Salazar is another one. Ken Salazar was the head of HRC's transiition team. It goes both ways.




Okay, they don't "deny" clmate change. They may accept it exists privately. But, they do plenty to prevent Climate Change legislation from taking place.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council



Koch Brothers Backing Misleading Anti-Solar Campaign in Florida | PR Watch



Kochs may not "deny" climate change, but they certainly do, what you want to argue they don't do, because they own the tarsands.
Click to expand...

Dude, i explained to you what the issues were with what you posted. I asked you the questions you need to answer to establish what you're saying.

And you make a fundamental error -- being against "climate change legislation" doesn't mean that you deny climate change is happening. It only means you oppose whatever the legislation is, and there can be many, many, many reasons for that other than denying it's happening.

You are not thinking about any of this on a very deep or critical level. You are still stuck on "Kochs BAD!!!!"
 
Threegoofs said:
You're right.

But it seems like a paper written by a half dozen highly trained professionals that has been accepted into one of the most selective journals in the world might have an edge over a random anonymous denier on DP.
Click to expand...

Well I apologize for my insult at the end there. Understand, the most gifted, highly trained mind can err just as quickly as the least gifted and trained, and it's generally much more grievous when such gifted people do err due to the weight their conclusions carry. It's easy to forgive the unschooled.
 
Winston said:
Well, if AGW is proven true, and it's proven that say, Exxon was aware of it and not only failed to act, but, contributed to scientists willing to publish denialist studies..

couldn't we come back on them for financial restitution when the **** hits the fan?

To answer your question more directly, if the government passes a carbon tax, that makes solar and wind, more competitive, they lose money.

Why don't you think the Kochs and Exxon have invested heavily in Research and development for alternative energy themselves? It's not because there's no opportunity and not a buck to be made. It's because they don't want to be forced to compete with anyone else. They're already the kings of their market.
Click to expand...

All Exxon's research was published and shared with the IPCC.
 
Jack Hays said:
The smear of Willie Soon is about as dishonest as it gets. All funding for his research was managed by the Smithsonian Institution. And FYI: it turns out he was right about the polar bears.


[h=1]500 sign petition to Smithsonian in defense of Dr. Willie Soon – Guess Smithsonian’s answer[/h]Guest essay by H. Sterling BurnettMore than 500 scientists, colleagues, and friends of Willie Soon, Ph.D. signed a letter sent, along with accompanying supporting documents, to the Smithsonian Institution’s Board of Regents defending the award-winning solar physicist against false allegations he failed to disclose conflicts of interest in publications requiring such admissions. The letter notes…
Click to expand...

He failed to disclose funding, a clear ethical breach.

But you'll be happy to know he's still doing it.

Smithsonian Gives Nod to More 'Dark Money' Funding for Willie Soon | InsideClimate News
 
humbolt said:
Well I apologize for my insult at the end there. Understand, the most gifted, highly trained mind can err just as quickly as the least gifted and trained, and it's generally much more grievous when such gifted people do err due to the weight their conclusions carry. It's easy to forgive the unschooled.
Click to expand...

The unschooled get schooled here daily.

After a while, they don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve contempt.
 
Threegoofs said:
The unschooled get schooled here daily.

After a while, they don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve contempt.
Click to expand...

I have no such burden. "Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!". Never mind that Ramses was just a headless trunk and legs in the British Museum when Shelly penned those words.
 
Winston said:
Well, if AGW is proven true, and it's proven that say, Exxon was aware of it and not only failed to act, but, contributed to scientists willing to publish denialist studies..

couldn't we come back on them for financial restitution when the **** hits the fan?

To answer your question more directly, if the government passes a carbon tax, that makes solar and wind, more competitive, they lose money.

Why don't you think the Kochs and Exxon have invested heavily in Research and development for alternative energy themselves? It's not because there's no opportunity and not a buck to be made. It's because they don't want to be forced to compete with anyone else. They're already the kings of their market.
Click to expand...
I can assure you AGW is true, just perhaps not the alarmist version of the IPCC.
So how would Exxon loose money if solar and wind are more competitive?
Also how do solar and wind compete with Exxon, they do not produce the same energy container?

Oil companies have traditionally led research, in many areas, Electronics, Chemistry, Metallurgy, ect.
Texas Instruments, was originally a geophysical company Geophysical Services Inc. GSI.
Yes most companies do research to make themselves more competitive, and profitable.

Lastly if you do not like the oil companies, then you likely do not want a carbon tax.
A carbon tax could vastly increase the wealth of the oil companies, because they can and would make carbon neutral fuels.
They already own the refineries, the distribution infrastructure, and have an established market.
Any newcomer would have large hurdles to overcome, that are old history for the oil companies.
 
longview said:
In spite of the hype of stories like these, a look at the actual data shows that the sea level rise has been fairly consistent.
Sea levels are rising, at much the same rate that they have been for over a century.
PSMSL Catalogue Viewer
Just for fun, I thought I would plot what a 1.1 to 3.1 change at 1990 would look like.
View attachment 67217941
There may well be places in PSMSL data set that show a change like that, but it would likely be some type of subsidence.
Click to expand...

What it is is a cherry pick of 1993. Go back a few decades and you will find that sea level by
1950 was going up at around 3 mm/yr. A while back I posted this graph

1zv7rwg.jpg


It's cleaned up a bit now but the numbers are the same. There aren't that many tide gauges
that go back to the beginning of the 20th century and fewer of them are world-wide. So seven
reasonably spaced gauges will have to do. If you just want to look at the last 30 years there are
over 100 of those, and they say the rate for the last 30 years is somewhat lower than 3 mm/yr.
 
Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
How would the rate at which solar heat energy can be absorbed by ice change?
Click to expand...

Winston said:
I mean what if the rate that sea levels rise, changes. Right now it's 3.1/mm year what if AGW causes that to rise? Then your figure of a foot per century is off.
Click to expand...

The rate of sea level rise is limited by the amount of energy that ice can absorb from sunshine.
 
[h=2]Sea level rise hysteria can be cured by looking at tide gauge data[/h]
Scaremonger photos of inundation abound in our national news this week. Famous foreshore parks are gone, islands disappear, houses, picnic areas, racecourses, golf courses — all submerged. The water rolls in over Sydney’s Circular Quay, Melbourne’s Docklands, Brisbane Airport, Hindmarsh Island — swamped. Rooned. Today its the satellite photo, tomorrow it’ll be computer generated streetscapes; coming soon, the underwater documentary: Swimming in the Opera House. . . .
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]Sea level rise hysteria can be cured by looking at tide gauge data[/h]
Scaremonger photos of inundation abound in our national news this week. Famous foreshore parks are gone, islands disappear, houses, picnic areas, racecourses, golf courses — all submerged. The water rolls in over Sydney’s Circular Quay, Melbourne’s Docklands, Brisbane Airport, Hindmarsh Island — swamped. Rooned. Today its the satellite photo, tomorrow it’ll be computer generated streetscapes; coming soon, the underwater documentary: Swimming in the Opera House. . . .
Click to expand...
At the current (last century) rate of rise in Sydney, they would hit a 2 meter sea level rise by about year 4194!
I may be wrong, but I suspect they have more pressing concerns!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom