Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Global Alarmists correct, WE'RE FLOODING!

Ask your mother. I won't be baited into spoon feeding you.

I can see it now ... Archer ... standing on the coast in Bande Aceh ... looking out at the surf ... saying "WHERE's THE FLOOD you claim morgan?"

no one needs to be spoon feed. they just need to open their eyes and read the articles without a knowing what it says before you begin to read. that leads to false understanding. weve done exactly that. why not try it yourself. Who knows, you might actually learn something that is not part of the party line.

Yet again morgan holds true his consistent pattern of .. NO ANSWER..

Not my problem.

To quote Samuel Johnson:
"Sir, I have found you an explanation, but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."

we have the understanding just fine. how many ppl have to tell you that you have it backword before you see that it is. no one is agreeing with you. everyone is disagreeing.

if one person says the sun rises in te west and everyone else says it rises in the east, what is the chance the sun is truely rising in the west.

dehammer asks:
"if one person says the sun rises in te west and everyone else says it rises in the east, what is the chance the sun is truely rising in the west."

What a truly lame pathetic analogy.

Ok ... lets try it your way.

Lets determine our national language by vote ... I vote we all speak Chinese: I win.

Lets determine the melting temperature of ice in degrees Celsius ... I vote 3.62 degrees.

100 years ago you likely would have asked for a vote to determine whether 747s were possible. Computers? Antibiotics?

To quote Dostoevsky:
"Nature doesn't consult you; it doesn't give a damn for your wishes or whether
its laws please you or do not please you. You must accept it as it is. . . ."

Your opinion and that of other equally uninformed people are valueless when discussing science. What has value is the scientific method. Feel free to bring forward peer-reviewed journal publications if you wish to dispute matters of science fact.

your right this is an even better analagy. you claim what we are speaking is chinees, while every else is saying we are speaking english.

its not a matter of vote. its a matter of who is seeing the reality.

here is the perfect one. everyone else says that water freezes at 32 f /0 c. do you really think that by claiming that everyone else is wrong that you will convience anyone that it freezes at 3.62 c. as you pointed out nature does not listen to you. neither do anyone else that has the ability to see for themself what is there. the only ppl you will convience are ppl that choise to not read. then again, once they see the way you win arguements is to insult everyone else, even they will stop listening.

dehammer wrote:
"you claim what we are speaking is chinees"

In the future read for comprehension.

dehammer wrote:
"do you really think that by claiming that everyone else is wrong that you will convience anyone that it freezes at 3.62 c"

Of course not. But that is precisely what you proclaimed your desire to put whether the sun sets in the East or West up to a vote.

In the future ... read for comprehension. Or perhaps write with the concept of concise communication rather than muddle as your product.

your political science mastery is showing again. no one discussed votes but you. i never suggested a vote. what is said was what is the likely hood that you are right if everyone says your wrong. in extreamly rare cases, such as the wright brothers, this might be the case, but even then, there were tons of ppl all the way back to de venci (sp?) and further, that agreed with them. you dont have anyone agreeing with you.

once again you have taking a science discussion away from science to show off your political agility. just because you can prove it in politics, it does not neccissary mean its true. in this case, its very wrong.

since your insisting on making this politics instead of science. ill leave you to what ever pipe dream you wish to maintain.

Here's what you wrote:
"how many ppl have to tell you that you have it backword before you see that it is. no one is agreeing with you. everyone is disagreeing."

That is a vote. That is claiming something is factual based upon the sheer number of people that choose Brand A over Brand B. It is called voting.

no. its not a vote. its not at all claiming that facts are based on numbers. its stating that some ppl cant see the truth. if 99 ppl see the sun comeing up in the east and 1 sees it comeing up in the west, do you really think the 1 person is actually seeing it come up in the west. no. hes just not seeing the reality of the sunrise. the same is the case here. if you are seeing the site say one thing and everyone else reads it see it say the totally different thing, do you really think that you could concievably be the only person in the world that sees it right and everyone else is wrong. not likely. that is not a vote. that is reality. reality does not care for the number of ppl claiming it is one way of another. it is what it is. if you cant percieve it to be the way it is, that is likely to be a problem with your perceiption.

it is conceiveable that there is a case of mass delusion with you being the only sane person in the world, but that is not very likely. its more likely the reverse.

Nonsense. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west in accordance to the laws of physics. Not because most of the people think it does.

You can waffle and wiggle all you wish but once again you have gotten it wrong.

no. ive not got it wrong. your refusing to see the truth.

i am very aware that its the physics of the earth that makes the sun appear to rise in the east (it actually does not, the earth spins makes it appear that way).

the point is, that if you were that one person, you would have no more control over wheither or not the sun rose in the west than the others who claimed it rose in the east. the same can be said of the articles you quoted. if it means one thing, do you really think that by insulting everyone, that you can make it mean a totally different thing. everyone that has been there save you, read it to mean one thing, yet you claim it to mean nothing of the sort. you insult us, for reading it the way the arthor wrote it and claim that we are not smart enough to read. yet you are the only one here who can read it. do you really believe that you can be the only person in this forum that has the ability to read.

if this is your belief, then there is no need for me to every pay attension to any thing that you write again. i have notice that im one of the last to bother reading your post.

dehammer wrote:
"i have notice that im one of the last to bother reading your post."

Please stop!

G'day,

Hey this is fun. Finding different threads with the same arguments. Are any of these achieving anything? Is anyone learning anything, especially with insults flying?

I liked your post Archer that opened this post. I learnt something. Isn't that what these forums are for. Now if it had stopped there or it became an argument on the science this would have been a fun thread to read or participate in.

NASA's figure's in many areas of global warming do not support even the theory of global warming, let alone a rise in sea level but these do seem to get overlooked quite a bit. As just one example I could point to Mr Morgan's one reference he supplied in his discusions on another thread, that to the Goddard Institute's, world average temperature graphs. They showed a net cooling effect for continental US over the last 100 years or so and prolonged periods of cooling in the the same period world wide that pretty much matched the warming periods. They even pointed out the flaws in data collection which was likely to give falsely high readings.

If you go to the main page of this site, you will find a recent article concerning the Antartic. The article suggested that there is MORE ice on the Antartic because of global warming. I really liked the logic there. Apparently when they measured the interior ice sheet of the Antartic over the last couple of decades it has found to have increased sufficiently to counteract the loss at sea level. The supposition then made was that this was due to global warming causing a greater precipitation in the Antartic (pretty much the driest place on earth with precipitation below 4 inches a year). There were no figures for greater precipitation over the same period by the way so I guess the conclusion was an assumption.

Without wishing to really muddy the waters, or agree with anything that DA Morgan has said, there really is room for much higher ocean levels than we currently enjoy. From geologic records it is reasonable to assume that ocean levels have been around 40 metres higher than currently. That doesn't mean I think that is going to happen only that there is sufficient water locked up in ice over Europe, Asia, North America, the Antartic and the Artic to raise the water levels substantially above what the current levels are.

In order to get to much higher levels of ocean levels however, we need to pretty much eliminate all locked ice. That happened last around 40 milion years ago. It could have been a few million years later than this but in relative terms I'm happy to concede that it might have been as recently as 30 million years ago.

Since then the earth has had a massive REDUCTION in CO2 levels, the continents have shuffled around, it has warmed and cooled a fairly large number of times so imho it seems to need a really big change to get the earth into a position where all ice melts and ocean levels are much higher than they are now.

If the earth's average temperature rose by 6 degrees I'm willing to bet that this might be a big enough change. I have no science to support this however.

But global warming arguments should be about facts. The fact that sea levels really could be higher than they are now does not support any argument that global warming is occurring or if it does major sea level changes will occur. One does not automatically lead to the other.

Richard

actually with all the insults and such what, i was challanged to find arguements to back up my statement. in the course of doing so, i learned quite a bit. one thing that was achieved was that i was quite convienced that a super valcano was on the verge of erupting and when it did it would destroy our civilization. in the course of discussin this with you and others (da included, despite his insults) ive learned that it takes more than a valcano, even a super one, to do the damage i expected to happen in the next decade. also, ive learned that they volcano i was expecting to do so much damage, is not as likely to erupt as i thought.

so yes some good has come out of this. small though the good has been, its there.

If we are flooding i cant see it. I live 6 miles south of the north sea in holbeach england and have seen no evidence of this. We will have problems if the sea level rises at its prediction of 5mm a year.Thats only a prediction, it is currently rising between 1.5 to 2mm yearly. Read this written evidence supplied to the house of commons as proof that we have nothing to worry about. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm

Robbie wrote:
"If we are flooding i cant see it. I live 6 miles south of the north sea in holbeach england and have seen no evidence of this."

Do you not believe that clocks don't work because you can't "see" the hour hand move?

Consider the following statement from the page you linked to: "For the last 30 years, our data sets are so contaminated by personal interpretations and personal choices that it is almost impossible to sort up the mess in reliable and unreliable data."

Reminds me of people who were saying "Well the levies here in New Orleans have never failed." You just sit their and hope you are right. With the certain knowledge that others will suffer if you are wrong. Some are not so callous.

Funny thing about some of you Brits. You're paying a phenomenal amount of money to drive cars and to have goods delivered by lorry. Here's an opportunity to save money, reduce the cost of goods, slow global warming, and decrease the impact of rising ocean levels ... and you want to argue the point ... you lose if you win. Go figure.

so, da, what your saying is all the data that was there before ppl started manipulating it to prove global warming is wrong, yet all of that is proof that man has already destroy the world. your forgetting that the original predictions of the flood were that it would occur before 2000. here is it 2006 and the flood has not occured. where is it.

You're not wrong, and I have no idea what it's going to take to get people to sit up and realise that we can't carry on the way we have been. And SUVs become ever more popular over here.

For those with their head in the sand who aren't sure that our CO2 contribution is all that significant - wouldn't it be prudent to reign in our output anyway, just in case. Or should we gamble with our children's children's futures?

For the record I have recently moved to a smaller car with a smaller engine. I don't feel so manly driving it but if vanity rules then we're all done for.

Blacknad.