(May 28, 2014 at 4:51 am)Hoopington Wrote: Yet we can't, we know that if and when they melt, that x inches will be added to sea levels and as a result, massive areas of populated land will be buried under water. This will happen, probably in my lifetime. Yet I haven't seen a single plan for any contingencies when it does.Move inland. There's your contingency plan.
Rising sea levels may be something to deal with for those in low lying areas, but I would be more concerned about sustained periods of drought and flooding and impact to food production.
(May 28, 2014 at 4:51 am)Hoopington Wrote:(May 28, 2014 at 4:42 am)FreeTony Wrote: It seems to me that the average man on the street is much better at determining long term climate changes, and their causation, than a large body of scientists who have spent decades studying it. All this by sticking their finger out of the window and invoking childhood memories of sunny summers - remarkable!
I'm not entirely sure of your point.
FreeTony is having a bit of fun at the expense of those who doubt the mechanisms or potential impacts of climate change without understanding the science behind the claims. It doesn't help that there is no science behind skeptical positions. Uninformed idiots like Rush Limbaugh have audiences comprised of millions of people that will believe what they hear. Limbaugh has been known to make the argument that AGW cannot be possible because God is in charge and wouldn't allow it to happen (or something to that effect). He will then say East Anglia without understanding what that was about. He will claim that we are actually cooling since a certain date without being able to demonstrate it. He will say that individual thermometers give higher than normal readings while not understanding that at any given time thermometers do give higher readings because of local weather but these aren't our only data points. In addition it betrays a lack of understanding of the difference between weather and climate. I could go on, but I'll leave it here for now.
