Ever wonder how Cyber truck owners will be bullied on the road? [Locked due to politics]

[ajdelange]

It is the political math and science used to transfer money into politicians pockets that many question..

And I number myself among those. Real scientists do not have a political agenda. They undersrtand that climate "science" is more like creation "science" than real science. IOW, like creation science it is religion wrapping itself in the cloak of science.

Sponsored

 

[Crissa]

And I number myself among those. Real scientists do not have a political agenda. They undersrtand that climate "science" is more like creation "science" than real science. IOW, like creation science it is religion wrapping itself in the cloak of science.

...And this is how we know what about you?

There are no facts in your post. Just a handwaved dismissal. It's insulting.

'Real scientists' do see the evidence of greenhouse gasses, global warming, climate change, extreme weather events, and sea level rise. We know it's slow and works on a exponential scale, and we're already approaching the tipping point.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

This is just basic, objective fact.

https://skepticalscience.com/

-Crissa

 

[LDRHAWKE]

The answer is - Because significant sea level rise isn't happening in the next few days or even in the next decade. The sea level is rising but incrementally and in the next 50 years it will be noticeable and catastrophic in some places. Climate Change is real and it's happening now. It is a threat to the future of civilization.


“THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING” say the DEMOCRATS, MARXIS, and CNN. WE WILL FIX IF YOU SEND A LOT OF MONEY…WE WILL FIX EVERYTHING IF YOU SEND US ALL YOUR MONEY.

Rising sea levels have been the norm

If you run the numbers (see below), you’ll find that sea levels have been rising an average of .42 to .48 inches (just under half-an-inch) per year for the past 10,000 years. Rising sea levels have been the norm, in other words, for 10,000 years.

And that brings us to today. What are sea levels doing right now?

Sea levels now rising slower than normal

According to NASA, sea levels are rising 3.24 mm (about 1/8th of an inch) per year. That’s about the thickness of two nickels stacked on top of each other. Not the diameter of the nickels, but the thickness, In other words, sea levels are rising slower than normal.

Sea levels declined in 2010 and 2011

That doesn’t even take into account the fact that sea levels declined in both 2010 and 2011.

Yes, no matter how assiduously the media tries to ignore it, sea levels actually declined in both of those years.

 

[Crissa]

Sea levels declined in 2010 and 2011

...This is called 'weather' not 'climate'. A single year is but a single data point.
https://skepticalscience.com/Extreme-Flooding-In-2010-2011-Lowers-Global-Sea-Level.html

You didn't note that sea level returned to its previous track at the end of 2011.

We know the sea level varies by more than it increased over the last century. It varies more daily! Tides. Seasonally, by temperature expansion, or, as in 2010, evaporation. You know, the stuff that gives us rain.

Your chart weirdly shows the difference between modern sea level rise and past: The chart is measured in meters. The sea level has risen a third of a tick on that chart in the last hundred years. But the 'time' interval is not 100 but 1000. The last hundred years are basically not on the chart.

If it had been doing that for a thousand years (the time interval on your chart) it would be equal to half the entire height of the chart.

This is why these denialist arguments are so tiring.

-Crissa

 

[firsttruck]

The only people it is a threat to are those who, with 100 years warning, are too dumb to get out of the way.

Yes, the RICH have no problem moving. Rich people can buy on the beach today or buy in 30 years from now because they have enough money to move later and lose their entire investment ( just like they can just burn a pile of money if they like).

What about all the cities or coastal areas with its expensive infrastructure & regular people being forced to move because of side effects of burning fossil fuels. Groups that struggle just to pay for everyday expenses like food, shelter, medical now have to pay to build new infrastructure for a problem they did not cause. A lot of these cities use order of magnitude less fuel per capita than users in Western countries but these low per capita users are the ones who now need to pay to move & rebuild infrastructure.

Shouldn't those responsible for selling and burning most of the fossil fuels pay the bill for the side affects of that use on others.

Not to mention that 6" rise in the mean doesn't really seem like much of a threat. How much of the world is at less than 6" MSL? Tidal variations are more than that.

The worldwide mean might only be 6" but high tides and surges from storms can easily be many feet higher and reach much further inland than before.

 

[Dids]

There is no question the earth has climate change. The Laurentide Ice Sheet had a mile deep ice where you live 20,000 years ago. The climate is always cycling and changing on earth. It is the political math and science used to transfer money into politicians pockets that many question..

Yes climate is always changing. Usually over periods of 1000s of years. This rapid period is man made climate change so the argument that climate is always changing is an attempt to minimize the harm that very wealthy corporations caused. I assume all the people that want to pretend that the rapid climate change is somehow normal have money invested in those companies, but according to statistics it is very unlikely they do.

 

[LDRHAWKE]

Yes, the RICH have no problem moving. Rich people can buy on the beach today or buy in 30 years from now because they have enough money to move later and lose their entire investment ( just like they can just burn a pile of money if they like).

What about all the cities or coastal areas with its expensive infrastructure & regular people being forced to move because of side effects of burning fossil fuels. Groups that struggle just to pay for everyday expenses like food, shelter, medical now have to pay to build new infrastructure for a problem they did not cause. A lot of these cities use order of magnitude less fuel per capita than users in Western countries but these low per capita users are the ones who now need to pay to move & rebuild infrastructure.

Shouldn't those responsible for selling and burning most of the fossil fuels pay the bill for the side affects of that use on others.



The worldwide mean might only be 6" but high tides and surges from storms can easily be many feet higher and reach much further inland than before.

Thank you….you just clearly explained how Marxist think. Climate change is all about somebody having more money than I have. It is the damn rich people’s fault.

if you work hard and save your money. I guarantee in a decade or two, by the time you get your third and fourth truck, you won’t be blaming the rich.

 

[Crissa]

Thank you….you just clearly explained how Marxist think. Climate change is all about somebody having more money than I have. It is the damn rich people’s fault.

Marxists think about taking care of those without money?

This is your argument against it, an ad hominem fallacy (calling it Marxism) and then say this thinking os bad because...

...it takes care of people without? It shows empathy?

Really? This is your argument? I'm flabbergasted.

-Crissa

Sponsored