AN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE

Then I can expect you to join us at the pro nuclear power rally?

Al Gore REALLY believes! In makin himself a shitload of cash, that is. He used a small portion of the money he's made from the global warming scam to buy a multi-million dollar condo about a foot above sea level in San Fransico by Fisherman's Wharf, eh?

I'm very cool with nuclear energy. Can't think of a solid reason why not to be. Not sure what this non sequitur is about, actually.

Glad you're cool with nukes. Most people in great fear of climate change are not, which I think you do know.

They also go ballistic if any 'reverse climate change' experiments are proposed. They say we can't possibly know the dangers of that. And yet they call anyone uncertain of climate change a 'denier'. Go figure...

Repeat

Uncertainty is not denial. Uncertainty is "I'm not sure." Denial is "Nuh-uh!" regardless of how much empirical data is trotted out. Uncertainty is reasonable, depending on how much verifiable data one has access to and how well one is capable of analyzing it; denialism is a blind, knee-jerk reaction based on emotional preferences.

Who's everybody, Ollie? Climatologists disagree about lots of things. But the disagreements "everybody" (the general public) has on these issues are primarily political and ideological in nature, not scientific.

So where do YOU stand on the issue then?

Denial is also a refusal to accept that you don't know.

Personally, I'm sure we are affecting the climate. I'm uncertain of it's extent or our ability to do much about it given the reality of world population and politics.

Ýou'd be lost without straw man fallacies. Leaving aside that you have no idea what i believe (this latest version of a straw man), i have specifically explained what i consider plausible and why. What we get from you is vague blather and claims about what others do or don't believe (nuclear energy? what the hell has that got to do with this?). I have not yet seen you provide any evidence about this topic, nor about your claims. You're just peddling vague bullsh*t and telling other people what they think and believe--something about which you know nothing.

I'm asking what you think. What's your take on the issue. Stop running in circles like a headless chicken. Stop pasting too and take a stand.

If you don't get the connection between nuclear energy and what we are told is the main driver of climate change, I can no longer take you seriously in this discussion.

What issue, Ollie? You're way too vague about what your question is. Do you have a specific question?

I think I've made my general sentiments known repeatedly throughout this thread.

Great tune, BTW!

You are avoiding telling us what you think about AGW because you are afraid of committing to a position. Running around in circles is too much fun I guess.

Run little headless chicken, run.

Consider the intellectual environment from which such springs:

I saw this earlier. There is no cure for stupid.

Yup. This highlights the difference between ignorance and stupidity. Or maybe not, come to think of it. This guy seems to be well endowed with both...

I get the impression that the specific matter of a rise in mean sea level--the topic i was addressing--reached a point at which Lead no longer has anything to say in the discussion, so he's found a feeble justification for dropping out of a discussion in which he could no longer sustain a coherent position.

Red herring with the nuke thing?

I suppose. Nuclear power is relevant to a discussion of the production of electric power without dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. But that's not what we were discussing. We were discussing the probable rise in mean sea level over the next century--which, apparently, Lead views with a "no skin off my nose" attitude. He specifically stated that mean sea level could be expected to rise one foot in the next century. He then, as so many denialists do, points to disagreement among people with expert knowledge. That's a cop out. There is a range of predictions for projected increase in mean sea level over the next century, and the disagreement appears to come from whether or not ice melt in glaciers and ice caps has been included. IPCC projects a rise of one meter. Hansen, et al, ACP, project a rise of several meters. In adopting two meters, i am following Holland , who says the IPCC projection is too conservative, and that the projection of Hansen, et al, is too vague, and its high end projection not supported by any data they present. This is standard for how science works. People in governments who make decisions have to deal with this sort of thing, and routinely do.

A rise in mean sea level of one foot might be annoying, but not any kind of disaster. But no one with credentials is projecting so little of a sea level rise. The IPCC projection, the low end estimate, of one meter does describe a condition which would be a disaster for tens of millions of people (although, apparently, nothing that would bother Lead). One meter floods significant areas of Bangladesh, of Vietnam and of Indonesia. The influx of salt water would ruin many coastal ecologies right around the world. Hansen, et al, correctly criticize the IPCC for failing to include ice melt in their projection. Two meters of rise in mean sea level floods Miami and most of Florida. It floods most of Vietnam and Bangladesh. It floods a good deal of Indonesia, including crucial rice production areas. One of the most productive rice growing areas in the world is in California, near San Francisco, and a two meter rise floods that. Two meters floods huge areas of coastal Europe, North and South America, Africa and Asia.

Lead's not worried about that. No skin off his nose. He'll be dead by then. Don't sweat the small sh*t. What a great guy.