On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 at 05:55, Rob McEwen <rob@invaluement.com> wrote:
Meanwhile, global warming alarmists have ALREADY made MANY dire predictions about oceans levels rising - that ALREADY didn't even come close to true.
Now this discussion does not belong to NANOG, but 'global warming alarmist' is worrying term to me. What is the perceived harm you're trying to reduce? Are the acts which try to address the problem the harm you'd like to see avoided? This seems very imbalanced bet, but bet lot of people with no training in the subject matter, including leader of the free world, are willing to take. This is like people who have never ever professionally been involved with Internet keep predicting that Internet is going to break. While (I'd hope) overwhelming majority of subject matter expert are confident that there isn't any concrete observable threat. Much in same way, compelling majority of scientists (>95%) believe in human caused global warming and even larger percentage in those scientists who have researched the subject matter. The skepticism is almost exclusively in people who have no training or research in the subject matter. It's curious phenomena where we are very willing to ignore all the data points that disagree with us, and accept the one data point that agrees with us, even when admitted to be fabrication. Some starting points, while of course entirely ineffective for reasons explained: http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/ http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/24/case-closed-climat... -- ++ytti