+ Reply to Thread
Page 22 of 26 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 260
  1. #211
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by beebs View Post
    Oh my god. Only .85. Really, that is FANTASTIC.

    Not to mention, it is a model, a prediction, and you are the one who points out over and over again how it is only a prediction and not fact. How funny that you jump to the other side and start talking as if it is gospel now that it "supposedly" backs up some of your claims.

    You're making my head spin.
    Quite the opposite. I do not claim it's gospel. The IPCC do think so though. And that is what they think is the worse case scenario. Why would they then throw numbers around (226 billion) by using a sea level increase that they don't think would happen? Wouldn't it be better to use the mean of the models to base the number on? ie. the mean of the worse case scenario is 0.65m. This would be a more legitimate figure to base the expected damage on. Why the hell did they choose 1.1m? It is even outside of their error margins!

    It is just scaremongering. But I guess it works on some people.

  2. #212
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    18,327
    Thanks
    1,453
    Thanked
    7,932
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts
    How do you know?

    Are you an expert in this area?

  3. #213
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by beebs View Post
    Here is an interactive flood map, you can set it to 1 metre and interestingly, even with a rise of just 1 metre some countries will be in big trouble, like the Netherlands. Interesting to see how it will affect other places like Sydney as well, better hope your not living in Mascot, Tempe, St Peters, Arncliff etc.

    http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=-27.83....1640&z=13&m=7
    Thanks for that. It's quite interesting. It would have been more useful though if there were more options between 0 and 1. Because any sea level change by 2100 would be inside this - according to the IPCC at least.

    But I guess then it wouldn't be very dramatic - not that is really is anyway.

  4. #214
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BigRedV View Post
    How do you know?

    Are you an expert in this area?
    How do I know what?

  5. #215
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    Quite the opposite. I do not claim it's gospel. The IPCC do think so though.
    Where does the IPCC say it is "gospel", where do they say it is 100%? Last I read, it is a prediction. Unless of course they can see into the future, or have a time machine and have actually been to the future. Of course, that must be it.

  6. #216
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post

    But I guess then it wouldn't be very dramatic - not that is really is anyway.
    What you mean is that it isn't very dramatic for you. I take it you don't live in the Netherlands then You really are very insular and selfish. I am not using that as an insult, by the way, but by the dictionary definition.

    devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to beebs For This Useful Post:

    sockstealingpoltergeist  (14-10-2013)

  8. #217
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by beebs View Post
    Where does the IPCC say it is "gospel", where do they say it is 100%? Last I read, it is a prediction. Unless of course they can see into the future, or have a time machine and have actually been to the future. Of course, that must be it.
    They don't say 100%, but they do say 95%. That is why they have ranges around a mean. They can't say what the exact figure will be, but they are 95% it will fall in that range.

    Are you saying that you don't believe the IPCC figures or something?

  9. #218
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by beebs View Post
    What you mean is that it isn't very dramatic for you. I take it you don't live in the Netherlands then
    I have family that live there. Does that count?
    The Netherlands is below sea level now is it not? Maybe a bigger dyke? That won't be too hard to build over the next 80 years.... if they need it.

  10. #219
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    I am saying it is not 100%. Even they say it isn't 100%. So if something is NOT 100%, then it isn't gospel. And you said that the IPCC says it is, when it is clear they have't said that at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    They don't say 100%, but they do say 95%. That is why they have ranges around a mean. They can't say what the exact figure will be, but they are 95% it will fall in that range.

    Are you saying that you don't believe the IPCC figures or something?

  11. #220
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by beebs View Post
    I am saying it is not 100%. Even they say it isn't 100%. So if something is NOT 100%, then it isn't gospel. And you said that the IPCC says it is, when it is clear they have't said that at all.
    I think you a playing semantics here. You used the word gospel first. And I can understand why, as the science has become a bit more like a religion.

    But I'm glad that you think that they may be wrong.


 

Similar Threads

  1. E Tax - Where am I going wrong??
    By Mokeybear in forum Family Finances
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-09-2013, 18:08

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
FEATURED SUPPORTER
Baby SensoryBaby Sensory is the only baby programme that offers a complete approach to learning & development. Our classes ...
REVIEWS
"Made bed time less anxious"
by Meld85
My Little Heart Whisbear - the Humming Bear reviews ›
"Wonderful natural Aussie made product!"
by Mrstwr
Baby U Goat Milk Moisturiser reviews ›
"Replaced good quality with cheap tight nappies"
by Kris
Coles Comfy Bots Nappies reviews ›