Propaganda and lies from PBS' Nova

Originally posted by @freakykbh
When you learn to use your computer for research instead of trolling, I'll engage you.
Otherwise, I simply don't have the time for such foolishness as having a conversation with a person who isn't even putting forth a modicum of effort.

Right, so you cannot. Walk me through your thought process here. Did you hear or read somewhere that climate scientists made alarming predictions about London and Miami, and you accepted it without question? Or is it something you just made up because it felt plausible to you?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Right, so you cannot. Walk me through your thought process here. Did you hear or read somewhere that climate scientists made alarming predictions about London and Miami, and you accepted it without question? Or is it something you just made up because it felt plausible to you?

I'll do you one better than walk you through mine--- since you seem lost in yours, I'll direct you back to the question.
Why do banks underwrite in areas knowingly pended for disaster?

Originally posted by @freakykbh
I'll do you one better than walk you through mine--- since you seem lost in yours, I'll direct you back to the question.
[b]Why do banks underwrite in areas knowingly pended for disaster?[/b]

Neither London nor Miami is "knowingly pended for disaster" on the short- to medium term. Can you cite a relevant expert claiming otherwise?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Neither London nor Miami is "knowingly pended for disaster" on the short- to medium term. Can you cite a relevant expert claiming otherwise?

You don't count as an expert, we can assume.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
You don't count as an expert, we can assume.

Indeed, I am not an expert on climate change. Are you aware of any such experts claiming that London and/or Miami are in imminent danger, as you have claimed?

Originally posted by @sonhouse
I know you want information in small doses so here is one, about acidification of the oceans:

http://www.noaa.gov/resource-collections/ocean-acidification

The numbers say it is up 30% and in absolute fact getting more acidic as time goes on.

Small temperature increases are killing coral reefs around the world, but hey, no big deal right? An e ...[text shortened]... all come out in the wash and we will go on just as before, minus Florida, New Orleans and such.

Lots of people exaggerate the coral reef problems. Then nations that benefit from the tourism have to set the record straight so people know they will have a reef to dive into.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/great-barrier-reef-scientists-exaggerated-coral-bleaching/news-story/99810c83f5a420727b12ab255256774b

You also have to remember that if 22% of a coral reef dies that means 88% is still living and has adapted just fine. The living coral will keep adapting and spread much like weeds that survived roundup herbicide.

Wikipedia is an unreliable source of info and you know it. Glaciers have not had a 70% melt rate. The sea levels are evidence of that. There is no significant increase.

Stop spreading alarmist nonsense!

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Lots of people exaggerate the coral reef problems. Then nations that benefit from the tourism have to set the record straight so people know they will have a reef to dive into.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/great-barrier-reef-scientists-exaggerated-coral-bleaching/news-story/99810c83f5a420727b12ab255256774b

You also have to remember ...[text shortened]... ls are evidence of that. There is no significant increase.

Stop spreading alarmist nonsense!

Typically (varying depending on the article of course), the English-language Wikipedia is the most reliable source you can find online after peer-reviewed literature.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Lots of people exaggerate the coral reef problems. Then nations that benefit from the tourism have to set the record straight so people know they will have a reef to dive into.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/great-barrier-reef-scientists-exaggerated-coral-bleaching/news-story/99810c83f5a420727b12ab255256774b

You also have to remember ...[text shortened]... ls are evidence of that. There is no significant increase.

Stop spreading alarmist nonsense!

So the death of a quarter of all coral reefs means nothing to you. What will you think when it is 50%? 60%?

If the reefs are saved it will only be from concentrated effort of sciences who are working hard to save them. Efforts that sidetracks scientists from other problems they are sorely needed for.

No big deal, right? Who cares if glaciers are gone in the next 100 years, they will be destined to come back in 200.....

You live a sad head in the sand life.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Indeed, I am not an expert on climate change. Are you aware of any such experts claiming that London and/or Miami are in imminent danger, as you have claimed?

I'm guessing the information comes from hyperbolic nonsense published by tabloid websites looking for clicks. They write provocative headlines like "London will be underwater in DECADES", but then when you read the article any critical thinker would instantly notice that none of their references say this. The actual science is nuanced.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
I'm guessing the information comes from hyperbolic nonsense published by tabloid websites looking for clicks. They write provocative headlines like "London will be underwater in DECADES", but then when you read the article any critical thinker would instantly notice that none of their references say this. The actual science is nuanced.

So let's nuance it a little further.

If the dire predictions aren't as dire as suggested, why would the topic even be considered?

The U.S. Naval Academy, JFK Airport, the Jefferson Memorial and President Donald Trump's Mar-A-Lago estate all could be underwater by the year 2100.
That's the doomsday prediction of a worst-case scenario of sea levels rising out of control by the end of the century, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Climate Central, a non-profit environmental research group

.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/04/27/water-water-everywhere-your-neighborhood-underwater-2100/100987622/

That's from a year ago, so maybe they've backed off of it since then.
USA Today gleaned their information from this report:

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/techrpt83_Global_and_Regional_SLR_Scenarios_for_the_US_final.pdf


I'm not aware of NOAA's credibility or competence in the scheme of things, but it's abundantly clear that that panel of people want others to think catastrophe is on its way... well, that it's actually already here, even if all the actual bad stuff hasn't really hit just yet.

Maybe the banks are just hoping for the best, you think?

Originally posted by @freakykbh
So let's nuance it a little further.

If the dire predictions aren't as dire as suggested, why would the topic even be considered?[quote]The U.S. Naval Academy, JFK Airport, the Jefferson Memorial and President Donald Trump's Mar-A-Lago estate all could be underwater by the year 2100.
That's the doomsday prediction of a worst-case scenario of sea level ...[text shortened]... ad stuff hasn't really hit just yet.

Maybe the banks are just hoping for the best, you think?

Worst case scenarios are worth considering in order to provide readiness and preparedness protocols for government agencies. The same is done for terrorist threats and nuclear wars that are possible yet extremely unlikely.

These two references you provided are good examples of what I am talking about. In the USA Today story, they start with the doomsday scenario, and bury the more likely "1 foot rise by 2100" at the very end of the article.

The NOAA technical report reference cites the probability of this "doomsday scenario" at 0.1%. From a disaster relief standpoint, worth considering. Kids practice fire and earthquake drills at school, but it's very unlikely to ever happen while that kids at school. The intermediate (1-3 foot rise) scenario was estimated a 17% probability.

USA Today focuses on the doomsday stuff to get reads and clicks, and so their graphics artist could render what the Mar-A-Lago estate would look like under lots of water, but I would not project that as some deceptive agenda by NOAA. Their report includes no such hyperbole. No one wants to read the boring technical report, but it's much more accurate and probabilistic.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Worst case scenarios are worth considering in order to provide readiness and preparedness protocols for government agencies. The same is done for terrorist threats and nuclear wars that are possible yet extremely unlikely.

These two references you provided are good examples of what I am talking about. In the USA Today story, they start with the doomsda ...[text shortened]... No one wants to read the boring technical report, but it's much more accurate and probabilistic.

So it is your assessment that the dangers of climate change are vastly overstated?

And by that I don't mean by the clickbait folks, but by those who are intending to influence or are the decision makers who have been (and are currently) making serious alterations across a multitude of policies and protocols, all related to a particular view of the environment.
If it's not as serious as they're making it sound, what is all the noise about?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
CO2 is NOT the driver.

https://principia-scientific.org/drop-sunspot-activity-warning-global-cooling/

so what is the driver?


Hint....you're supposed to say "Milankovitch cycles"

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Typically (varying depending on the article of course), the English-language Wikipedia is the most reliable source you can find online after peer-reviewed literature.

What is your source of information?

Originally posted by @sonhouse
So the death of a quarter of all coral reefs means nothing to you. What will you think when it is 50%? 60%?

If the reefs are saved it will only be from concentrated effort of sciences who are working hard to save them. Efforts that sidetracks scientists from other problems they are sorely needed for.

No big deal, right? Who cares if glaciers are g ...[text shortened]... 0 years, they will be destined to come back in 200.....

You live a sad head in the sand life.

Coral has natural cycles of dying and regrowth. This has been happening for millions of years. This is absolutely nothing you should be alarmed about. It isn't because of global warming either. In fact, global cooling is what causes ocean de-alkalinization, NOT global warming.
You are being fooled by a myth. What you are saying does not even make any sense and is contrary to actual science.

https://principia-scientific.org/the-myth-of-acidification-of-oceans/

Sea level rise is very moderate. This is proof that the glaciers are not melting at an alarming rate. I created a thread about it and everything. I have already proved you wrong about that.

How many times do you have to be lied to before you accept you have been duped by liars? You can see for yourself that Nova lied about co2 driving temps when it is the other way around. Any climate scientist should be aware of that. What is their excuse? Did they ignore climate scientists because they think they know better? Not much of an excuse is it?
Nova has destroyed it's own credibility on this issue. Everything in their program should be regarded as bunk. Nova has been caught lying.