Climate Change = Fear-mongering. Remember 15 years ago the way people were predicting foot to meter per year seawater rise? It's a miracle the Empire State Building isn't underwater already as some predicted. There's been no global warming for over a decade. All of those models used to predict disasters that never happened turned out inaccurate and wrong. But that doesn't stop corrupt organizations who have perverted "science" from continuing to use these "theories" for their political ends.
Ocean levels have been rising for thousands of years and will continue to do so until the next ice age (barring human intervention to prevent it from occurring - might be a good thing?), so NASA would be wise to use technologies such as levies to prevent flooding of their facilities. They might've been even smarter to build them at higher elevation to begin with.
> Remember 15 years ago the way people were predicting foot to meter per year seawater rise?
What you suggest was far from a generally accepted prediction. The IPCC's 2001 report was for <1 meter rise over the entire century. See http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climat... . It emphatically was NOT a "foot to meter per year seawater rise."
Do you have evidence that it wasn't just kooks saying what you suggested?
> "as some predicted"
Who predicted that? Some guest on Coast to Coast AM who also thinks alien UFOs create chemtrails?
> use technologies such as levies to prevent flooding
As brought up several times in this thread, levies won't work at KCS. Water would simply go through the porous rock under any such levy.
If these statements of your are false, or at best straw man arguments, why should anyone believe the rest of what you write?
There's a lot of motte/bailey'ing[1] going on in the climate change debate.
There is tons of histrionics and scare mongering out there. I particular remember during the COP15 meeting in Copenhagen, art installations illustrating how the city would be under water if sea level rose 7 meters, which is the estimated rise if all of the ice on Greenland melts. The Day After Tomorrow, not to mention An Inconvenient Truth.
While there certainly are and were voices critical of these things and their dubious relationship with the science (whether settled or consensus or not), their usefulness in advancing the agenda appears to be appreciated more than their role in misrepresenting the science. This is an actual quote from a scientist listed in the "criticism" section of the "The Day After Tomorrow" Wikipedia page[2]: "I'm heartened that there's a movie addressing real climate issues. But as for the science of the movie, I'd give it a D minus or an F. And I'd be concerned if the movie was made to advance a political agenda.". This is an actual scientist on the record believing that TDAT is "addressing real climate issues". That is like applauding Swordfish[3] for addressing cyber security issues. That is the Bailey.
Then, years after, when these things perhaps look a bit more absurd (and some very specific predictions turned out not to come through, at least not as unambiguously as expected), we get "The IPCC's 2001 report was for <1 meter rise over the entire century ... Do you have evidence that it wasn't just kooks saying what you suggested?"
That's the Motte.
You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If it was only kooks saying it, certainly none of the non-kooks bothered throughly rebutting them at the time.
Where are the people who said that the sea level would raise 1 foot to 1 meter per year?
You didn't answer that question. Everything you wrote is a distraction, which ends up increasing the confusion you describe and complain about.
You pointed to some artists and movies. So what? I can point to movies who have depicted meteors crashing into modern day Earth, and volcanoes erupting in Los Angeles, and even have the core of the Earth stop spinning. Artists have different goals. They are not required to only depict what science predicts +/- 1 sigma.
You point to a scientist who liked that "The Day After Tomorrow" used climate change as a plot device, even if the science was awful. So what? I'm sure some Spacewatch people like "Armageddon" and that some geologists like "The Core", even though the science is awful in both. Are you equally disdainful towards those scientists? Or do only climate scientists draw your ire? (BTW, "Water World" used global warming as a plot device, was almost 9 years before TDAT, and portrayed an equally scientifically absurd future.)
You mentioned "An Inconvenient Truth". Does Gore make a prediction that there will be 30cm or higher water rise per year? Does he even predict that the Atlantic will have reached the base of the Empire State Building by now?
How is the IPCC 2001 report not an attempt at a thorough rebuttal? What level of rebuttal would you require before you say it was sufficient? Do we all need to be like Neil deGrasse Tyson and pinpoint every single scientific flaw in a movie? Or go even further and reject every movie with a flaw?
In other words, I'm not going to get into a goalpost argument with you before you even say what the goalposts are.
Your argument of the structure of the argument is useless. It's so easily inverted. Watch: You have set up your own Motte and Bailey about what's going on in this HN thread, so nothing I say can dissuade you. You have inserted irrelevant commentary from your bailey to defend your views. Now you can ignore me because you think I'm using irrational arguments, because you have placed me in a spot where you think I can be ignored. Now you can enjoy your motte.
I argued that the OP presented a straw man argument that misrepresents what the large majority of climatologists and policymakers like Gore were making 15 years ago. Do you agree or disagree with me?
I presented the IPCC report to supports my argument. Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" also supports my argument. If you disagree, do you have an actual examples of people who predicted 30+cm/year sea rise, or even that much of Manhattan would be underwater by now?
I am guilty of reading "predicting foot to meter per year seawater rise" as a satirising exaggeration for "predicting immediate, catastrophic (plausibly sea-level related) consequences" and I did not state that clearly. With that amendment, I think my comment still has merit, but it may no longer have responded to anything you wrote. Sorry about that.
That said, An Inconvenient Truth did suggest a 20-foot rise as something imminent. Did it "predict" it? No, not explicitly, it suggests and imagines and calls to action. It also doesn't specify the timescale, but there is great urgency. With that, your GP, while very much on the high end, is way closer to AIT than AIT is to IPCC.
A short note on movies and art: the difference between "The Core" and TDAT (and "regular" art and the "climate" ditto) is that the latter didn't use science as a plot device, it explicitly injected itself into a political debate, dominated by a scientific discourse.
How do you figure it is a satirising exaggeration and not a straw man designed for ridicule?
I found a transcript of "An Inconvenient Truth" at http://www.admc.hct.ac.ae/hd1/courses/blog/gw/An%20Inconvien.... The section on 20 foot sea level rise is a description of what would happen "If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted" and ends with "Is it possible that we should prepare against
other threats besides terrorists? Maybe we should be concerned about other problems as well."
I agree that it's a call to action. I disagree that it's a prediction of something imminent, as in, an outcome that will happen within a couple of decades of when the movie was made. I read it as a need for imminent action, to prevent one possible long-term outcome.
(While incorrect, I do not think it seriously affects the underlying meaning. The choice of "snow" over "glacier ice" should be read as an homage to Hemingway, with some poetic license allowed.)
Gore predicts Glacier Valley will have no glaciers within 15 years, or 2021. NPS estimates no later then 2030, https://www.nps.gov/glac/learn/nature/glaciers.htm , so Gore may be a couple years off there as well.
Gore was willing to make testable predictions in the 10-15 year span, which is a clue that the 20 foot rise in sea level that he described was not meant as a prediction of something imminent.
I can't understand what you're getting at with The Day After Tomorrow. The scientist is basically saying "WTF this sucks, what were they thinking?" but more nicely.
Have you ever seen someone express a position that you agree with, but do it so badly that you wish they hadn't, because they make you uncomfortable and just give ammunition to your opponents, while convincing nobody of the merits of your position? And then you try to formulate some sort of response to say, well, you're right, but oh how I wish you hadn't made your case so badly? That's basically this.
I don't think the scientific consensus was ever for that much sea level rise during the last few decades. The fact is that greenhouse gases are undeniably increasing the earths temperature and this is destabilizing the major ice sheets. Exactly how fast these ice sheets will melt is uncertain but there is no doubt that the rate of their melting is accelerating.
Ocean levels have been rising for thousands of years and will continue to do so until the next ice age (barring human intervention to prevent it from occurring - might be a good thing?), so NASA would be wise to use technologies such as levies to prevent flooding of their facilities. They might've been even smarter to build them at higher elevation to begin with.