“Palm Beach County has participated since 2010 in joint planning with neighboring Broward, Miami-Dade, and Monroe counties under the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact. According to a report produced by the group, sea levels in the region could increase from the 2010 mean level as much as seven inches by 2030 and two feet by 2060.”
Therefore we refrain from accusing people of murder.
Something that has long intrigued me is this.
Except that a lot of climate alarmists have beachfront property…
Why do I picture Lex Luthor buying up California desert east of the San Andreas fault?
The earliest panic projections of sea level rise go back to around -]1970/-] 1969. We were supposed to be UNDERWATER … ALREADY … decades ago.
No.
Sea levels are rising. They have been rising since the last ice age. The significant point is that the rise appears to be stable; it has not been accelerating, so the kerfuffle over the inundation of coastal areas is simply evidence that Chicken Little has struck again.
If warming is being caused by man, if the warming is actually harmful, if CO2 should be considered a pollutant, and if replacing hydrocarbon fuels with alternatives doesn’t cause more problems than it solves, then we should in fact replace them.
And pretty much the consensus of all but a few. Most likely the same sort of few who denied the health dangers of tobacco decades ago. Best to err on the side of caution.
If there really was this mythical consensus, then there wouldn’t be a debate about what is happening and what to do about it. In reality, the “consensus” is just an artificial construct created to stifle debate. There’s a lot of disagreement about what is happening, what is causing it, and what to do about it. You’re side really needs to figure out that “the mob has spoken” isn’t a very compelling argument.
Policy-makers and the public who are not members of the relevant research community have had to form opinions about the reality of global climate change on the basis of often conflicting descriptions provided by the media regarding the level of scientific certainty attached to studies of climate. In this Essay, Oreskes analyzes the existing scientific literature to show that there is a robust consensus that anthropogenic global climate change is occurring. Thus, despite claims sometimes made by some groups that there is not good evidence that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities, the scientific community is in overwhelming agreement that such evidence is clear and persuasive.
It is foolish for anyone, let alone policy makers, to form an opinion on this subject based on what the media says about it.
There are numerous studies claiming to find a “consensus”, and there are just as many refutations of those studies. The Oreskes study is no exception.
It has proven especially difficult in light of the fact that the climate simply refuses to cooperate with the predictions.
So now we have studies about studies. Does anyone see the possibility of an infinite recursion here? (In determining whether or not there is a consensus about whether there is a consensus on global warming, I propose doing a study of the number of studies of the number of studies of global warming, thus adding a 3rd level to the recursion. Or is is a 4th? No matter. Someone will propose a 5th level soon.)
Or we could simply go with the science.
Lol, ummmmm ok?
No, you cannot simply go with the science - unless you are a qualified climate scientist yourself doing your own original research. Otherwise you** are** relying on what other scientists tell you. For example, how do you know there was an 18-year pause in global temperatures? Did you measure it yourself? Personally? Or are you relying on a consensus of measurements that others have made?
Is this a surprise to you? One scientist does a study and makes assertion A. Another scientist replicates his work and claims that A is not a justifiable conclusion. If you read the study, and the critique of that study, you can make up your own mind as to who has the stronger argument. The real point here, however, is that there is no justification whatever for asserting that A is a fact, and we should all just accept it as true without question. It is an assertion. If you would like to defend it, give it a shot, but let’s not pretend the question has been finally answered, or that those who reject the claim therefore reject science.
