|
This week's This American Life was a very good climate change episode. Somewhere in this thread at some point (california wildfires?) someone mentioned that the quickest way to turn a liberal town libertarian is to bring up Managed Retreat, and that's exactly what the long second story is about. A woman in Pacifica California loses her back yard because it falls into the ocean, but the real estate interests get the whole town up in arms about how the government is going to steal everyone's homes. https://www.thisamericanlife.org/762/apocalypse-creep It was a good episode, but did leave me with that sinking 'what do we do' feeling, particularly the second and 3rd segments. I'm moving from the UAE back to the US this summer and climate change is on my mind frequently in the process. While there has been some frustrating reading the past few pages, I do like how this thread often helps point away from spiraling about feeling futile about all of it. Gonna try to lobby to make the place I live more walk, bike, and bus-friendly. Gonna stock up on stuff for emergencies and start building community support networks wherever I land, and figure out the rest from there as the disasters unfold.
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 11:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:57 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1493653824216735748 Since scientists have consistently been under-performing in their estimates and projections, we can probably expect a one foot sea level rise by like 2035 or 2040.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 20:58
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:Since scientists have consistently been under-performing in their estimates and projections, we can probably expect a one foot sea level rise by like 2035 or 2040. I'm sorry, but no, scientists are not "consistently wrong about everything". They are the people who are doing the most to inform us about the dangers of climate change, and in fact the only reason we know about climate change at all. It is uneducated laymen who treat climate more as a political than a scientific issue who are consistently wrong, and frankly mature adults should know better than to make sweeping dismissals of science like this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 21:52
|
|
|
Yes, that's the reason for the constant "glaciers melting much faster than predicted" and "methane levels have skyrocketed way beyond projections and we don't really know why" etc. type reports from those very scientists, huh?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 22:02
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I'm sorry, but no, scientists are not "consistently wrong about everything". They are the people who are doing the most to inform us about the dangers of climate change, and in fact the only reason we know about climate change at all. It is uneducated laymen who treat climate more as a political than a scientific issue who are consistently wrong, and frankly mature adults should know better than to make sweeping dismissals of science like this. get out you know what he's saying
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 22:04
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I'm sorry, but no, scientists are not "consistently wrong about everything". They are the people who are doing the most to inform us about the dangers of climate change, and in fact the only reason we know about climate change at all. It is uneducated laymen who treat climate more as a political than a scientific issue who are consistently wrong, and frankly mature adults should know better than to make sweeping dismissals of science like this. This is an idiotic strawman — I didn't say scientists are consistently wrong, I said they consistently under-predict.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 22:05
|
|
|
For the sake of heaven, mods, please do we have to play the game where Thug gets to pretend like they doesn't know exactly what game they are playing with this ceremoniously parsimonious, endless, deliberate misreading of every single post?Slow News Day posted:This is an idiotic strawman — I didn't say scientists are consistently wrong, I said they consistently under-predict. More, they openly acknowledge as much, too. Thug would know this if they *read* a loving model writeup every once in a while or asked for a microphone at the end of any one of regularly held symposia. Model researchers are open about discussing their misgivings about the limits beyond direct forcing factors and first order effects. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Feb 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 22:07
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:For the sake of heaven, mods, please do we have to play the game where Thug gets to pretend like they doesn't know exactly what game they are playing with this ceremoniously parsimonious, endless, deliberate misreading of every single post?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 22:10
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I'm sorry, but no, scientists are not "consistently wrong about everything". They are the people who are doing the most to inform us about the dangers of climate change, and in fact the only reason we know about climate change at all. It is uneducated laymen who treat climate more as a political than a scientific issue who are consistently wrong, and frankly mature adults should know better than to make sweeping dismissals of science like this. Please refrain from giving sweeping advice on how mature adults should order their methodology of how they interact with the world in the same post where you respond to a poster with a quote attributed to them that they never, in fact, said. Please give more weight to your arguments and avoid constructing preferable narratives as an alternative to engaging with the arguments as put forward if you make the voluntary choice to respond to them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 22:12
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:This is an idiotic strawman — I didn't say scientists are consistently wrong, I said they consistently under-predict. Saying that scientists "consistently under-predict" is not significantly different from saying that they are consistently wrong. If all the predictions are under-predictions, they are, by logical necessity, wrong. The only possible reason you could think the best response to a report on sea level rise is to say "actually, I expect sea levels to rise much faster than this" is because you think the report is wrong. This is splitting hairs. Epic High Five posted:Please refrain from giving sweeping advice on how mature adults should order their methodology of how they interact with the world in the same post where you respond to a poster with a quote attributed to them that they never, in fact, said. Please give more weight to your arguments and avoid constructing preferable narratives as an alternative to engaging with the arguments as put forward if you make the voluntary choice to respond to them. Care to give me some pointers on how I should properly give weight to my arguments against positions like "we should disregard this scientific report on sea level rise and make up whatever arbitrary figure we want instead"? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 22:36
|
|
|
You could dig into the report and trying to come with reasons as to why you think that the "One foot sea level rise by 2050" is probably an accurate prediction, and very unlikely to be an underestimate. I'm sure the thread could benefit from your obvious wealth of knowledge and insight!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 22:50
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Saying that scientists "consistently under-predict" is not significantly different from saying that they are consistently wrong. If all the predictions are under-predictions, they are, by logical necessity, wrong. The only possible reason you could think the best response to a report on sea level rise is to say "actually, I expect sea levels to rise much faster than this" is because you think the report is wrong. This is splitting hairs. I'd start by basing your continuing argument on something the poster actually said, as I had recommended in my post responding to you. For example, could you please tell me where someone said "we should disregard this scientific report on sea level rise and make up whatever arbitrary figure we want instead"? I'd like to remind you that the rules of D&D generally and this thread as well is that you are to engage in good faith and with the arguments presented. If you are unable to do this please resist from posting in another manner instead. I cannot offer any suggestions on how to better argue your own point. Data usually helps, I'm sure there's some credible research on real life outcomes versus previous predictions that could be analyzed in lieu of this. Similarly, data may exist supporting any other point, and we could also discuss that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 22:53
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Saying that scientists "consistently under-predict" is not significantly different from saying that they are consistently wrong. If all the predictions are under-predictions, they are, by logical necessity, wrong. Being cautious in their predictions and under-estimating to where they are off by some percentage is no different than being so far off the mark as to have 0% correct. I am very smart and know how science works, you can tell because i use phrases like "logical necessity".
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 23:00
|
|
|
Marenghi posted:Being cautious in their predictions and under-estimating to where they are off by some percentage is no different than being so far off the mark as to have 0% correct. I am very smart and know how science works, you can tell because i use phrases like "logical necessity". As I have just said, please refrain from attacking users imagined or real in lieu of addressing an actual argument or making one of your own, thank you
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 23:02
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:More, they openly acknowledge as much, too. Thug would know this if they *read* a loving model writeup every once in a while or asked for a microphone at the end of any one of regularly held symposia. Model researchers are open about discussing their misgivings about the limits beyond direct forcing factors and first order effects. Would you care to share some of these open acknowledgments? Because this has not been my experience with climate science at all. Scientists of course will acknowledge all sorts of limitations to their studies but I don't know anyone who thinks that the work they are doing is fundamentally flawed and hopelessly biased in a pollyannish direction. In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion you are not getting these views from asking questions at climate symposia or reading model writeups, but rather from editorials like this one from the NYT. This was widely panned by climate scientists who vociferously objected to the author's (a climate journalist's) characterization of their work. I'd like to repeat some of their objections, collected here at Climate Feedback. quote:The main flaw in the author’s argument that scientists have “underestimated” the rate and severity of climate change is that the author predominantly points to recent extreme events as evidence of what scientists “failed to predict” (such as the heat wave that extended into the Arctic and drove rapid melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet or recent hurricanes). quote:n my view, this article misrepresents the history of climate science (in particular, what was known from the 70s to 90s) to try to make up a case that climate scientists “got climate change so wrong”, i.e., completely underestimated its pace and amplitude. I found numerous factual errors and mis-interpretations in this presentation. The reality is, since at least the 80s, climate scientists have been making broadly consistent projections (to whomever was listening). The observed pace of warming is on par with these projections—not faster. What’s true is that some impacts of that warming are happening faster than initially anticipated. quote:Most of the specific facts and statistics in this op-ed are correct, but the overall effect is significantly misleading. The author’s central point is that scientists have been drastically underestimating the scope and the pace of climate change until just the past decade or so, and recent events such as permafrost melting, ice cap loss, and extreme weather events have caught them by surprise. This is simply not true. quote:I agree with Alexis Berg regarding the overall premise of this piece. Overall, climate scientists’ predictions have, on average, been roughly correct for quite a few decades now. This opinion piece by Eugene Linden seems to selectively present historical predictions that turned out to be underestimates, while ignoring those that were right-on or even overestimates. Do these seem, to you, like the statements of people who agree with you that "scientists have consistently been under-performing in their estimates and projections"? Sure doesn't to me. And this is just a taste. I'd love to see who in the climate community you're talking about that really does think the whole thing is a gigantic underestimate, because as I've said, I have literally never heard it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 23:10
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I'd love to see who in the climate community you're talking about that really does think the whole thing is a gigantic underestimate, because as I've said, I have literally never heard it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 23:13
|
|
|
Vision prize do polls on climate scientists and this old survey shows the consensus at the time was that the 2013 IPCC was too optimistic on sea level rise over the current century. http://poll.visionprize.com/#ipcc-too-optimistic I can't find it now but I've also read statements from climate scientists saying the IPCC under-estimates climate change. It's a bit of a self selection bias, if they are too realistic policy makers consider them doomers and are more likely to ignore what's being said. So by necessity to have policy makers (politicians) listen to the results they have to be cautious in how they present it. That's not to say the experts working on the IPCC reports are lying, they are being pragmatic in how they present the findings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 23:22
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Saying that scientists "consistently under-predict" is not significantly different from saying that they are consistently wrong. They. Talk. About. This. Constantly. gently caress. Off. don't know how to win this argument without literally kidnapping you here you have nothing to contribute beyond your fifth grade appreciation for the scientific method Edit: aaaand would you go and look at that, your response goes and deliberately mischaracterizes what I've explained to you in my post. Buzz off. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Feb 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 23:24
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:You could dig into the report and trying to come with reasons as to why you think that the "One foot sea level rise by 2050" is probably an accurate prediction, and very unlikely to be an underestimate. I'm sure the thread could benefit from your obvious wealth of knowledge and insight! I've got a better idea. Before you dismiss scientific reports, why don't you dig into them and come up with reasons why it's wrong? Why is it other people's responsibility to come up with in-depth debunks of flippant statements you make against the credibility of specific reports and climate science generally?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 23:27
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I've got a better idea. Before you dismiss scientific reports, why don't you dig into them and come up with reasons why it's wrong? Why is it other people's responsibility to come up with in-depth debunks of flippant statements you make against the credibility of specific reports and climate science generally?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 23:31
|
|
|
1) You apparently have no memory of extensive conversations that have taken place in this thread over the better part of a decade on the climate research community griping about the handcuffs their findings and models are placed within for the purpose of avoiding alarmism in AR reports 2) you apparently have no memory of any of the myriad symposia that have been linked here over the years that include QA sessions involving researchers talking about their research and specifically addressing the question of why underestimation happens, openly 3) you apparently have no memory of any of the reporting that has been linked here over the years regarding climate scientists talking about underappreciation for tertiary effects, unknown tipping factors, in general the fact that the Earth is a complex loving machine. No climate model researcher defends their model in the terms that you are making them out to here, which is a GIGANTIC red flag and is one of the primary reasons that I am so aggressively telling you to gently caress off. models are assembled and defended in very complex statistical terms, the degree to which their work is defensible against paleoclimate information are limited and researchers know that and say it up front. It is never presented hard and fast like you're making it out. You are confusing the certainty of atmospheric metrology versus research on direct forcing factors and first order effects versus more complex models with secondary order effects, hypothetical tipping points, novel included factors like modern and paleo land ice loss, etc. Your confusion here is amateurish, and I'm sorry to say it but it is plain as day, and you cannot hide it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 23:38
|
|
|
Yeah, I cannot for the life of me understand how someone who is supposedly familiar with — or at least pretends to be familiar with — the field of climate science can also be so utterly unaware that a huge number of scientists believe the predictions to be underestimates.Thug Lessons posted:Would you care to share some of these open acknowledgments? Because this has not been my experience with climate science at all. Scientists of course will acknowledge all sorts of limitations to their studies but I don't know anyone who thinks that the work they are doing is fundamentally flawed and hopelessly biased in a pollyannish direction. In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion you are not getting these views from asking questions at climate symposia or reading model writeups, but rather from editorials like this one from the NYT. This was widely panned by climate scientists who vociferously objected to the author's (a climate journalist's) characterization of their work. I'd like to repeat some of their objections, collected here at Climate Feedback. Like, I seriously cannot think that the above was posted in good faith, because https://www.vice.com/en/article/43e8yp/the-uns-devastating-climate-change-report-was-too-optimistic quote:NOT ALARMIST ENOUGH https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/09/tipping-points-could-exacerbate-climate-crisis-scientists-fear https://thebulletin.org/2018/10/cli...matereport_Oct9 https://grist.org/article/arctic-sea-ice-could-be-a-thing-of-the-past-by-the-2030s/ https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/may/02/white-house-arctic-ice-death-spiral Are we supposed to pretend that a scientist who won the Nobel prize for his work in ozone layer depletion, or any of his colleagues for that matter, don't know what they are talking about? Thug Lessons posted:I've got a better idea. Before you dismiss scientific reports, why don't you dig into them and come up with reasons why it's wrong? Why is it other people's responsibility to come up with in-depth debunks of flippant statements you make against the credibility of specific reports and climate science generally? Well, you're the person who is pretending to be an expert, breathlessly arguing with anyone and everyone in this thread. I don't think the rest of us need to prove anything to you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 23:39
|
|
“Adding 50 percent more warming to reach 1.5 degrees won’t simply increase impacts by the same percentage—bad as that would be. Instead, it risks setting up feedbacks that could fall like dangerous dominos, fundamentally destabilizing the planet.”
|
it would almost be worth the effort to go and dredge up years of work again in this thread, but the entire audience of your comedy poo poo show knows that it will be useless. the only disrespect for the scientific method on the part of the rest of this thread's posters would manifest if somehow we were to think that engaging you just one more time would somehow produce different results
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 23:40
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:You seem to have not heard of a lot of things with recent climate science. I'm not going to dox myself, but former colleagues of mine in climate science and related fields tend to think we are underestimating rapidity and magnitude of changes. We also fairly consistently have underestimated climate change, because the shorter-term feedbacks have been overwhelmingly positive, leading to a tendency to systematically under-estimate. cat botherer posted:This is all "common knowledge" stuff. Everyone else is aware that IPCC and other projections have underestimated change, so I think the onus is on you here to make an effort to educate yourself. We can dig up the reports, but its not worth it when you will move the goalposts, rendering that work pointless. Okay, so, your unnamed climate colleagues. Could you, without doxxing yourself, link to some papers, articles, editorials, etc. that they or people they agree with have written that explicate these views? Why do the scientists I've cite disagree with them? What percent of climate scientists agree with them? Why, if they're right, do they fail to make headway within the IPCC or the broader climate climate community, like the people making models? Doesn't this last fact indicate that, in fact, people who feel this way are in the minority? I guess these are rhetorical questions that will go unanswered because "everyone already knows" and I should "educate myself" but, well, I will continue to believe the IPCC and prominent climate scientists over your unnamed colleagues and "common knowledge".
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 23:43
|
|
|
again, you *think* you're dragging in authors whose works have been selected for citation by the ipcc as your allies on this, which belies that you are apparently not even aware of some of the most high profile reporting of modern times on exactly this subject amateurish, you don't even understand the ways in which you are undercutting yourself it would be different if it were remotely believable that you were engaging in good faith
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 23:46
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Okay, so, your unnamed climate colleagues. Could you, without doxxing yourself, link to some papers, articles, editorials, etc. that they or people they agree with have written that explicate these views? Why do the scientists I've cite disagree with them? What percent of climate scientists agree with them? Why, if they're right, do they fail to make headway within the IPCC or the broader climate climate community, like the people making models? Doesn't this last fact indicate that, in fact, people who feel this way are in the minority? I guess these are rhetorical questions that will go unanswered because "everyone already knows" and I should "educate myself" but, well, I will continue to believe the IPCC and prominent climate scientists over your unnamed colleagues and "common knowledge". edit: I'll help you out here. https://lmgtfy.app/?q=climate+change+underestimated+ipcc (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 23:48
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:1) You apparently have no memory of extensive conversations that have taken place in this thread over the better part of a decade on the climate research community griping about the handcuffs their findings and models are placed within for the purpose of avoiding alarmism in AR reports I've seen no evidence to indicate that most scientists actually believe this is happening. It's been suggested, (or, maybe a better way to put it is "this accusation has been leveled"), but it's never really backed up by anything. Here's a good article on the subject by Gavin Schmitt, the current NASA climate czar. I've extracted the most relevant portion below. quote:The notion that scientists are so conservative that they hesitate to discuss dire outcomes that their science supports is quite prevalent in many treatments of worst case scenarios. It’s a useful idea, since it allows people to discount any scientists that gainsay a particularly exciting doomsday mechanism (see point #1), but is it actually true?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 23:50
|
|
|
now you're stuck between deciding whether to spend some time googling a la  trying to figure out what we're talking about and actually catching yourself up a little bit, or continuing your hard stance on asking thread to catch you up so that you can fishmech and weasel your way around every possible deliberate misinterpretation of every possible sentenceall this in a thread that usually showers new posters with information that somehow continues to lock horns against you Do note that it remains your burden of proof to come to the table with evidence of why underestimation is not normal, by the way, as that has been the track across each report as time progresses Citation: quite literally every single IPCC report 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 23:52
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:No, because you can do that yourself easily. You are extremely tiresome. So which is it? Are your views based on reasoned evidence from colleagues who work in climate, or are they based on Google searches that turn up results to op-eds like the one I linked above and was savaged when reviewed by actual climate scientists? Is it really that much to ask that you produce a single piece of data to support your views, rather than lmgtfy links and assertions that it's "common knowledge" (despite me linking extensive examples of climate scientists disagreeing with it)?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 23:55
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:So which is it? Are your views based on reasoned evidence from colleagues who work in climate, or are they based on Google searches that turn up results to op-eds like the one I linked above and was savaged when reviewed by actual climate scientists? Is it really that much to ask that you produce a single piece of data to support your views, rather than lmgtfy links and assertions that it's "common knowledge" (despite me linking extensive examples of climate scientists disagreeing with it)? https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=es&as_sdt=0%2C48&q=climate+change+underestimated+feedbacks&btnG= cat botherer fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Feb 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 23:56
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Care to give me some pointers on how I should properly give weight to my arguments against positions like "we should disregard this scientific report on sea level rise and make up whatever arbitrary figure we want instead"? Found the part you made up in your head. No one is making their conclusions arbitrarily, but by processing the data they are aware of. We consistently see things getting worse faster than expected, not the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 23:57
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I've seen no evidence to indicate that most scientists actually believe this is happening. It's been suggested, (or, maybe a better way to put it is "this accusation has been leveled"), but it's never really backed up by anything. Here's a good article on the subject by Gavin Schmitt, the current NASA climate czar. I've extracted the most relevant portion below. Is there any specific reason why Thorn's post does not meet this demand? Have you found any data as I had requested before you elaborated further to support your initial thrust that the IPCC and similar agencies/persons are not in fact underestimating sea level rises? If you're not interested in providing that I don't think it is best you continue this, as if you have no argument I can only conclude you are just trying to create drama and will be forced to act accordingly. We are past the point of demanding more and more evidence as you potentially ignore what has already been put forward, please respect the debate and discussion process and move on to the supporting arguments stage as the sides have been clearly delineated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2022 00:00
|
|
|
Who wants to tell this clown that there's a difference between RCPs and climate models, by the way as I scroll back, it occurs to me that he immediately started blowing up about climate science but he might have misinterpreted the inciting issue (by barging in to other people's conversation, it should be noted) entirely
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2022 00:03
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:now you're stuck between deciding whether to spend some time googling a la That's your opinion. Now let's look at the actual IPCC reports. Here's a comparison of IPCC (and earlier) model projections compared to observed warming, provided by Carbon Brief.  Do we see a consistent track record underestimation of warming across each report as time progresses? Not as far as I can tell. The second and third report underestimated warming while the first, fourth and fifth report overestimated warming, and none of their deviations were particularly massive, almost entirely within a 95% confidence interval, and on average their combined estimations slightly is almost exactly on par. So you say there's this trackable, consistent underestimation, but when we actually go back to look at the data, it's just not there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2022 00:14
|
|
|
Why are you showing predictions on warming when the conversation was about sea level rise? Is this what they call moving the goal posts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2022 00:22
|
|
|
I honestly kind of wish I was audacious enough to link a table with enormous, swinging errors and then try to say that somehow it's not an example of enormous swinging errors. ^^^ Here I thought I was engaging with the motherfucker about RCPs, so I guess that's the part where I answered the field and where the goal posts were at the time. That makes sense as RCPs would be a component of any sea level projection derived from any particular RCP... Jesus Christ the scope exploded. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Feb 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2022 00:25
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:So you say there's this trackable, consistent underestimation I might eat a probation for this, but I actually cannot hold back being honest about how I feel in response to you just...seeing made up poo poo, everywhere: I'm so sorry. Actually would someone give me a sixer, I have dinner to cook and a house to clean, and just speaking for myself, that is completely correct when he says below that I have positively no interest in participating in the "Debate meeeeeee" Ben Shapiro routine Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Feb 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2022 00:29
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Is there any specific reason why Thorn's post does not meet this demand? Have you found any data as I had requested before you elaborated further to support your initial thrust that the IPCC and similar agencies/persons are not in fact underestimating sea level rises? If you're not interested in providing that I don't think it is best you continue this, as if you have no argument I can only conclude you are just trying to create drama and will be forced to act accordingly. Yes, I've provided multiple links to statements by climate scientists that insist they are not systematically underestimating climate change. But I have to assume that doesn't count, or else you wouldn't be posting this. Anyway, your demands are ridiculous and obviously only apply to me. No one else here, including the person who makes the original claim, is required to provide any data at all, (and they have, dutifully, not done so). You're contriving a reason to ban me, not for breaking any rules, but simply for expressing views (backed up ample citations) that "cause drama", and, well, I guess I can't stop you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2022 00:31
|
|
|
"Actually I'm being persecuted"
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2022 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:57 |
|
|
Marenghi posted:Why are you showing predictions on warming when the conversation was about sea level rise? Because I am responding to a person who claimed that the models (which project warming) are "handcuffed" to "avoid alarmism". It's a pretty relevant point in context, because if they're handcuffed and are underplaying warming, why are they so spot on?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2022 00:39
|
|