Re: Rising sea levels are going to mess with the internet

[Rob McEwen <rob () invaluement com>]

On 7/23/2018 3:55 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> 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

Yes - sad isn't it - that someone else brought this up.

> 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?

Anytime a "big solution" is applied to a "small problem" (or 
non-existent problem), problems arise. At the least, mis-allocation of 
resources  can cause situations where other important issues fail to get 
addressed when the small problem gets an over-allocation of resources. 
(and real peoples' lives get damaged in the process)

> Much in same way, compelling majority of scientists (>95%) believe in
> human caused global warming

Your ">95%" is MORE junk science. The popular percentage to throw out is 
"97%" - as quoted by Obama  and many others - this came from 2013 paper 
by John Cook - that was so incredibly and dishonestly flawed as to 
basically be unscientific propaganda. (1) many scientists' papers were 
falsely classified and (2) he did a "bait and switch" where he "read 
into" certain papers stuff that wasn't really there.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

Real science makes "risky predictions" and then is willing to redo the 
hypothesis when those predictions don't happen as predicted. In 
contrast, junk science stubbornly sticks to preconceived biases even 
when the data continually fails to validate the hypothesis (which is 
happening here!). The fact that you're so quick to try your "appeal to 
authority" with that fake ">95%" percentage - and you don't seem to 
understand that a mis-allocation of resources based on junk science is 
NOT a victim-less crime (so to speak - not technically a crime - but 
REAL people ARE damaged by this) - undermines your credibility.

Tell you what, I'll admit that I might be wrong the first time that we 
see a 5+mm per year average of sea level rising over a 5 year period.

HINT: We won't. For example, look at the blue line at the end of this 
"scary graph" from a "climage change" site that has your same viewpoint: 
https://insideclimatenews.org/content/average-global-sea-level-rise-1993-2017 
- as scary as that chart looks like at first glance - it shows 
little-to-no *acceleration* - the rate of increase holds steady at 3.5 
mm/year - BUT HERE IS THE INTERESTING PART: even this pro-climate change 
site's own graph shows that the sea levels have failed to rise AT ALL 
over the past couple of years.

But 15 years from now, we'll see new rounds of NEW dire predictions 
about alarming FUTURE sea level risings that are allegedly just around 
the corner.

--
Rob McEwen