[snakeoil]

Here is a very good report on sea level rise. The scary part is that previous estimates have been wrong; it's going to be worse.

Please note the source of the article.

http://www.ibtimes.com/sea-level-rise-c ... uo.twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[sillydaddy]

snakeoil doing your best Chicken Little. Maybe it's not as bad as you say.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/09/k ... t-sinking/

Climate scientists have expressed surprise at findings that many low-lying Pacific islands are growing, not sinking.

Islands in Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia are among those which have grown, largely due to coral debris, land reclamation and sediment.

[elklindo69]

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/oce ... evel-rise/

Consequences

When sea levels rise rapidly, as they have been doing, even a small increase can have devastating effects on coastal habitats. As seawater reaches farther inland, it can cause destructive erosion, flooding of wetlands, contamination of aquifers and agricultural soils, and lost habitat for fish, birds, and plants.

When large storms hit land, higher sea levels mean bigger, more powerful storm surges that can strip away everything in their path.

In addition, hundreds of millions of people live in areas that will become increasingly vulnerable to flooding. Higher sea levels would force them to abandon their homes and relocate. Low-lying islands could be submerged completely.

[johnforbes]

Elkindope has no degree in anything related to climate science.

Jerry Lewis, in "The Nutty Professor," knew more than Elkin.

[Clownkicker]

johnfoumart has no degrees in anything related to any of the crap he goes on yammering ad nauseum about here.
But that doesn't stop him from pretending someone else needs a degree to hold an opinion here.

johnfouter is so stupid that he doesn't even understand that elklindo didn't write the article he linked.
Since elklindo didn't write it, his education is irrelevant to the article he posted, just as johnny's education is irrelevant to anything here. But did johnfourchette make a similar post questioning the educations of sillydaddy or snakeoil?
No.

johnforbes is stupid.

And a hypocrite, which is far worse than being uneducated.

[johnforbes]

Obviously, Elkindope didn't write any article.

After all, Elkin has enough of a challenge even attempting to write his name (Elkin A. Dope).

Clownsucker has zero degrees in any subject related to climate science, so Clownsicker's ignorance rivals Elkin's.

[Clownkicker]

johnforbes is trying to tell us that, since he also has no degree in any subject related to climate science, his ignorance rivals elklindo's.


We already knew you were ignorant, johnny, you moron. :lol:

But you're far worse--you're an ignorant hypocrite.

[johnforbes]

I have no degree in any field related to climate science, and I have always held a position of rational skepticism about anthropogenic global warming.

Elkindope and Clowntoker have no degree in the field either, but they leap to certitude.

The entire history of science is essentially a series of instances of such false certitude.

The certitude of Elkin and Clown is essentially religious because it consists of mere faith.

[Clownkicker]

Of course, I haven't "leapt to certitude" at all on the issue.

johnny is always projecting his own simplistic ignorance onto others.

johnforbes still thinks evolution, gravity, and his utter lack of intelligent humor are mere matters of faith.

[johnforbes]

I have no degree in any field related to climate science, and I have always held a position of rational skepticism about anthropogenic global warming.

Elkindope and Clowntoker have no degree in the field either, but they leap to certitude.

The entire history of science is essentially a series of instances of such false certitude.

The certitude of Elkin and Clown is essentially religious because it consists of mere faith.

[elklindo69]

I have no degree in any field related to climate science, and I have always held a position of rational skepticism about anthropogenic global warming.

Elkindope and Clowntoker have no degree in the field either, but they leap to certitude.

The entire history of science is essentially a series of instances of such false certitude.

The certitude of Elkin and Clown is essentially religious because it consists of mere faith.

I'm scientist, but my expertise is not in climatology. So I quoted a source which reflects the scientific consensus among climatologists. Now John Forbes resorts to an ad hominem attack, which is pure intellectual laziness, because you are attacking the poster not the claim. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with scientific consensus, but you sure better have a really good reason for doing so. Meaning that through the scientific process you have empirical data which can be verified through peer review. And no scientist would risk their career by knowingly publishing falsified data, because it's going to be verified anyway.

John Forbes claims that the current scientific consensus is a "false certitude." That's complete bullshit because there is something called the scientific process. Where an observation is made, a hypothesis is generated, experiments are conducted, the data is analyzed, and conclusions are drawn. Claiming "false certitude" is a pseudo intellectual assertion which has no basis in fact.

So is John Forbes debunking man made global warming by claiming that perhaps future discoveries "may or may not" debunk the current scientific consensus???

That's really weird thinking.

:lol:

[elklindo69]

I have no degree in any field related to climate science, and I have always held a position of rational skepticism about anthropogenic global warming.

Elkindope and Clowntoker have no degree in the field either, but they leap to certitude.

The entire history of science is essentially a series of instances of such false certitude.

The certitude of Elkin and Clown is essentially religious because it consists of mere faith.

It's entertaining to see how Boehner pulls out the "I'm not a scientist" claim when responding to a question about global warming. But then quickly retorts how regulating greenhouse gasses will kill jobs. I never knew Boehner is a economist!

:lol:

House Speaker John Boehner said Thursday that he’s “not qualified to debate the science over climate change” while slamming the Obama Administration proposed plans to deal with rising global temperatures.

“Listen, I’m not qualified to debate the science over climate change,” Boehner said. “I am astute to understand that every proposal that has come out of this administration to deal with climate change involves hurting our economy and killing American jobs. That can’t be the prescription for dealing with changes to our climate.”

[sillydaddy]

As the character David Aames (Tom Cruise) said in the film Vanilla Sky, "What's the answer to 99 out of 100 questions?......Money".

[elklindo69]

As the character David Aames (Tom Cruise) said in the film Vanilla Sky, "What's the answer to 99 out of 100 questions?......Money".

Unless you are John Forbes with all of those "diplomas."

:lol: