2 2
rushmc

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

Recommended Posts

spacer.png

"Bobby Outten, a county manager in the Outer Banks, delivered two pieces of bad news at a recent public meeting. Avon, a town with a few hundred full-time residents, desperately needed at least $11 million to stop its main road from washing away. And to help pay for it, Dare County wanted to increase Avon’s property taxes, in some cases by almost 50 percent.

Homeowners mostly agreed on the urgency of the first part. They were considerably less keen on the second.

People gave Mr. Outten their own ideas about who should pay to protect their town: the federal government. The state government. The rest of the county. Tourists. People who rent to tourists. The view for many seemed to be, anyone but them.

Mr. Outten kept responding with the same message: There’s nobody coming to the rescue. We have only ourselves.

The risk to tiny Avon from climate change is particularly dire — it is, after all, located on a mere sandbar of an island chain, in a relentlessly rising Atlantic."

Quite frankly I don't know how elevating the main road is going to save adjoining properties from going underwater. I'd recommend the FEMA pdf "Elevating Your House".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Yeah thought as much. He was willing to make the "Tesla will be bankrupt soon" prediction though. He's probably afraid of being wrong again.

It's a simple prediction - 2021 will be warmer, on average, than 1998. Then he could shut up for the rest of the year and we'll see in January who's right. I for one, wish I was wrong.

 

20 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

spacer.png

"Bobby Outten, a county manager in the Outer Banks, delivered two pieces of bad news at a recent public meeting. Avon, a town with a few hundred full-time residents, desperately needed at least $11 million to stop its main road from washing away. And to help pay for it, Dare County wanted to increase Avon’s property taxes, in some cases by almost 50 percent.

Homeowners mostly agreed on the urgency of the first part. They were considerably less keen on the second.

People gave Mr. Outten their own ideas about who should pay to protect their town: the federal government. The state government. The rest of the county. Tourists. People who rent to tourists. The view for many seemed to be, anyone but them.

Mr. Outten kept responding with the same message: There’s nobody coming to the rescue. We have only ourselves.

The risk to tiny Avon from climate change is particularly dire — it is, after all, located on a mere sandbar of an island chain, in a relentlessly rising Atlantic."

Quite frankly I don't know how elevating the main road is going to save adjoining properties from going underwater. I'd recommend the FEMA pdf "Elevating Your House".

I think their problems have more to do with being “located on a mere sandbar” than with climate change.  You can’t say they weren’t warned.

Matthew 7:24-27

“Everyone therefore who hears these words of mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man, who built his house on a rock. The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it didn't fall, for it was founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of mine, and doesn't do them will be like a foolish man, who built his house on the sand. The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, olofscience said:

Yeah thought as much. He was willing to make the "Tesla will be bankrupt soon" prediction though. He's probably afraid of being wrong again.

It's a simple prediction - 2021 will be warmer, on average, than 1998. Then he could shut up for the rest of the year and we'll see in January who's right. I for one, wish I was wrong.

How about there will be fewer climate related deaths in 2021 than there were in 1921?  If there was no dangerous global warming in 1921 and we have an existential climate crisis in 2021, it should show up in the number of climate related deaths, right?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Let’s ignore her for a moment and concentrate on the fact that, according to NOAA, this February’s  GLOBAL temperatures were less than those in 1998.  Exactly the point in the original post.

So is February the only month of the year that matters? Why didn’t you post noaa data from last February, which was the 2nd hottest on record? That still would have backed up your argument that global temperatures are not rising. Kind of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
24 minutes ago, murps2000 said:

So is February the only month of the year that matters? Why didn’t you post noaa data from last February, which was the 2nd hottest on record? That still would have backed up your argument that global temperatures are not rising. Kind of.

No, I just thought it noteworthy, given the topic of the OP, that it was worth mentioning global temperatures are currently the same (even less) as they were in 1998.  Obviously there is more to global climate than the levels of CO2.  Not to mention, the breathless predictions of catastrophe have not only failed to materialize, but in many cases the actual observations are the opposite of what was predicted.

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

No, I just thought it noteworthy, given the topic of the OP, that it was worth mentioning global temperatures are currently the same (even less) as they were in 1998.  Obviously there is more to global climate than the levels of CO2.  Not to mention, the breathless predictions of catastrophe have not only failed to materialize, but in many cases the actual observations are the opposite of what was predicted.

Yet global temperatures really weren’t the same as before last February. Why is that not noteworthy? Yes, there is more that affects global climate than CO2 levels but I don’t know that that has ever been in dispute. You are right that not all dire predictions have come to pass yet. Some have though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

spacer.png

"Bobby Outten, a county manager in the Outer Banks, delivered two pieces of bad news at a recent public meeting. Avon, a town with a few hundred full-time residents, desperately needed at least $11 million to stop its main road from washing away. And to help pay for it, Dare County wanted to increase Avon’s property taxes, in some cases by almost 50 percent.

 

We were there in 2019.

Ocracoke, a few miles south, had to be evacuated a couple of times recently due to flooding.  It will likely become uninhabitable in the near future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
8 hours ago, brenthutch said:

How about there will be fewer climate related deaths in 2021 than there were in 1921?  If there was no dangerous global warming in 1921 and we have an existential climate crisis in 2021, it should show up in the number of climate related deaths, right?  

Predictable. When asked to make a simple prediction (2021 will be cooler than 1998 on average globally) you move the goalpost from temperature to climate-related deaths and A HUNDRED YEARS :rofl:

It almost seems like you don't have any confidence, strange huh?

Edited by olofscience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
2 hours ago, olofscience said:

Predictable. When asked to make a simple prediction (2021 will be cooler than 1998 on average globally) you move the goalpost from temperature to climate-related deaths and A HUNDRED YEARS :rofl:

It almost seems like you don't have any confidence, strange huh?

No, it is to make a point.  Why would it matter if it was warmer, cooler or the same if doesn’t have real world consequences?  We are spending billions (trillions globally) on a problem that does not exist and on “solutions” that would have no effect even if it did.  The framers of the Paris Climate Agreement agree, even if fully implemented, its impact would be immeasurable.  To pursue a course of action where the costs are enormous and the benefits are immeasurable is folly.  
BTW, those were YOUR goalposts not mine.
 

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

No, it is to make a point.  Why would it matter if it was warmer, cooler or the same if doesn’t have real world consequences?

Then why were you crowing about the February temperatures if it doesn't matter anyway?

Your dodging is getting really obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The framers of the Paris Climate Agreement agree, even if fully implemented, its impact would be immeasurable.  To pursue a course of action where the costs are enormous and the benefits are immeasurable is folly.  

I'm not tracking, but I will tell you my disagreement with the Paris Agreement is - it's lack of enforceability.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
34 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Then why were you crowing about the February temperatures if it doesn't matter anyway?

Your dodging is getting really obvious.

Are you having trouble understanding the OP?  Clearly the alarmists predictions were wrong.  I was just pointing that out. 

Speaking of dodging, I noticed you failed to address the rest of my post regarding the Paris Climate Agreement.  Do you really think we are in a climate: catastrophe/apocalypse/emergency/collapse that is an EXISTENTIAL threat to the planet and its inhabitants?  


  

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

I'm not tracking, but I will tell you my disagreement with the Paris Agreement is - it's lack of enforceability.  

John Kerry,
“The goals thus far have been inadequate ... The goal of achieving a 1.5˚(C) limitation on the rise of Earth's temperature is absolutely the appropriate goal, but the current promises of countries through the Paris Agreement, are insufficient to get the job done," 

So even if all of the signatories abided by all of the provisions in the Paris Climate Agreement it would not achieve its goal, while costing trillions of dollars.  It fails a simple cost-benefit analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

I'm not tracking, but I will tell you my disagreement with the Paris Agreement is - it's lack of enforceability.  

Many international agreements don't have sanctions. Most international agreements are just that. Agreements to work to a common objective. NATO and various military think tanks have studied and found that more wars will be fought in the future due to climate change. For developed countries consumers and corporations are driving change as well.

In addition, many agreements like the Paris accords start as simple agreements. Then morph into more comprehensive ones. some with sanctions.

How climate change is driving emigration from Central America   There is an increasing flow of economic migrants into the US and the EU due to climate change. All from deteriorating agriculture zones further south.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
27 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Clearly the alarmists predictions were wrong.  I was just pointing that out. 

If the were so clearly wrong and 2021 would be cooler on average than 1998 you wouldn't have a problem making that prediction right?

27 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Speaking of dodging, I noticed you failed to address the rest of my post regarding the Paris Climate Agreement.  Do you really think we are in a climate: catastrophe/apocalypse/emergency/collapse that is an EXISTENTIAL threat to the planet and its inhabitants?  

The reason why I ignore this is because you're trying to build a strawman again and attribute other arguments that I didn't make.

If you bring in what AOC or what Al Gore or whatever random person said, go debate them, not me.

You're clearly afraid enough to keep putting up all these strawmen and it's getting really boring.

Edited by olofscience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, olofscience said:

If the were so clearly wrong and 2021 would be cooler on average than 1998 you wouldn't have a problem making that prediction right?

The reason why I ignore this is because you're trying to build a strawman again and attribute other arguments that I didn't make.

If you bring in what AOC or what Al Gore or whatever random person said, go debate them, not me.

You're clearly afraid enough to keep putting up all these strawmen and it's getting really boring.

You still dodged my question.  I asked YOU not AOC or Al Gore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, olofscience said:

... and it's getting really boring.

You have an amazing tolerance for debate with the illogical, for B.S., for attempted distractions, to shoot down lies, etc. With Brent and Zoe you have demonstrated that you are a G.O.A.T.

You could easily get a job as a consumer relations manager for Delta, United or any other carrier. Then take on all comers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
39 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

There is an increasing flow of economic migrants into the US and the EU due to failed leadership. All from deteriorating economic and social conditions further south.

FIFY

BTW if climate change hurts agricultural production in the south, somebody better tell India and Brazil.  Both with record food production. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_India

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_Brazil

Brazil had record agricultural production, with growth of 9.1%, principally motivated by favorable weather. 

It must be very liberating to have a mindset unencumbered by facts or logic.

 

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I asked YOU not AOC or Al Gore.

And yet you'll attribute all their arguments to me. Nice try.

4 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

You could easily get a job as a consumer relations manager for Delta, United or any other carrier. Then take on all comers.

That's why some of those superhero comics and movies are so unrealistic with their secret identities in an entry-level job. Anyone who's in a customer-facing job with superpowers is far more likely to turn into a supervillain than a superhero...

At least Zoe was entertaining, this one, not so much 9_9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, olofscience said:

And yet you'll attribute all their arguments to me. Nice try.

 

Let me try again,

Do YOU really think we are in a climate: catastrophe/apocalypse/emergency/collapse that is an EXISTENTIAL threat to the planet and its inhabitants?

A simple yes or no will suffice but feel free to elaborate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

EXISTENTIAL threat to the planet

First: the planet is not a living thing, it's a lump of rock weighing about 6000 quintillion tons (about 5.9722×10^24 kg).

So right there and then you're already loading the question. Very, very dishonest.

13 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

A simple yes or no will suffice

I don't know. Seriously, I have no idea. It's currently a subject of active research. (to be clear - ignoring the loaded side of the question)

But what I'm very sure of, is that all your arguments have gigantic holes in them, and that you make dishonest arguments, you move the goalposts, and that you really have nothing new to offer. The fact that you have to keep building strawmen arguments to attack just shows how desperate you're getting.

But the world's moving on.

You might think you have a lot of company, but it's really just a few pseudoscientific crackpots like ZP whose lies are easily exposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Let me try again,

Do YOU really think we are in a climate: catastrophe/apocalypse/emergency/collapse that is an EXISTENTIAL threat to the planet and its inhabitants?

A simple yes or no will suffice but feel free to elaborate.

Answering for only myself, I'd say no. The problem with the questions are that they are shitty questions open for endless definition changes and off to the races you'll go again. So, no, the planet will survive this as it will survive everything else we do to it for the next 4.5 Billion years. And, no, the planets current inhabitants will, looking at data like world population growth, survive nicely. You win again. Congratulations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, olofscience said:

First: the planet is not a living thing, it's a lump of rock weighing about 6000 quintillion tons (about 5.9722×10^24 kg).

So right there and then you're already loading the question. Very, very dishonest.

That is why I included “inhabitants”.  To ignore that is dishonest.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

So, no, the planet will survive this as it will survive everything else we do to it for the next 4.5 Billion years. And, no, the planets current inhabitants will, looking at data like world population growth, survive nicely.

"that is an EXISTENTIAL threat to the planet and its inhabitants?" Double-parallel question (a/k/a double barrel question) Addresses more than one issue, but allows for only one answer.

Here's my answer:

1. The planet will survive - It may get angry and kill us all, but in some form; it will survive. 

2. Current inhabitants: I don't agree with your response. There's enough evidence by WHO to suggest otherwise.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
2 2