US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Ok, I concede. (stuff deleted)

Great. Now will you stop posting rubbish?

(I can dream - can't I?)

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

But then you might need to stay on point.

That would make one of us on point.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Ok, I concede. Climate change is real. It gets cold in winter and turns hot in summer.

Anyone who cannot distinguish seasons from climate should concede.

[Bycrick]

For LE's short memory, "One of the biggest barriers is corporations, politicians, and deniers (like some people on this thread)"lying about the science and these issues to prevent the needed progress."

Ah, I understand now. The barrier is the corporations and politicians" who were the targeted audience of COP 26, as per Gord. And them nasty deniers, like me, who won't simply agree with everything you say. We’re just standing in the way of all that "progress" that the progressives are assuring us is right around the corner, if we’d just shut up and let them rule the world.

If you get rid of "corporations," who’s going to build all your windmills and solar panels, or distribute all the electricity? And if you get rid of the politicians, who will send out the tax collectors to extract the money to pay for it?

Oh, you mean the corporations and politicians that don't agree with you. Now I understand.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Ah, I understand now. The barrier is the corporations and politicians" who were the targeted audience of COP 26, as per Gord. And them nasty deniers, like me, who won't simply agree with everything you say. We’re just standing in the way of all that "progress" that the progressives are assuring us is right around the corner, if we’d just shut up and let them rule the world.

If you get rid of "corporations," who’s going to build all your windmills and solar panels, or distribute all the electricity? And if you get rid of the politicians, who will send out the tax collectors to extract the money to pay for it?

Oh, you mean the corporations and politicians that don't agree with you. Now I understand.

God, I hope I age better than this. Go do a crossword or something.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Everything in this post is either outright false, a misrepresentation, made up, not apparently connected to the thread, or a half truth intended to deceive.
Seriously?

Nope - that is unfair "This thread has gone beyond wearisome long ago." if amended to reference your posts - totally spot on.

But more seriously, I do get it. Facts are bothersome things. You seem to be doing your best to avoid them here, but it must be exhausting. Maybe take a rest?

I've covered some basic facts that reveal that climate change caused by man is not real and cannot be proven with science. It is only a political scheme. So yes, I can see that such facts are bothersome to those who cling to the false propaganda of climate change. It is only supported with deceptions and half truths. Nobody who does an honest dig into the scheme can support the fraud.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

I've covered some basic facts that reveal that climate change caused by man is not real and cannot be proven with science. It is only a political scheme. So yes, I can see that such facts are bothersome to those who cling to the false propaganda of climate change. It is only supported with deceptions and half truths. Nobody who does an honest dig into the scheme can support the fraud.

You have simply posted well known and refuted talking points.

[Bycrick]

"God, I hope I age better than this." So do I because you’re not very capable now in debating.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by lestersails

C'mon - really? Jackdale made an assertion of "two centuries". It is childish for you to interpret that as meaning precisely 200 years and do a 'gotcha' because the number you attached to the claim is a few years off?
I guess I should not expect more, but I guess I would be wrong.

Other than one individual yes the rest are off by at least 30 years .
He has done that same specific type to me so yes I want specifics.

List the person and year they made the assertion or posed the theory .

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You have simply posted well known and refuted talking points.

OK. I need a break from this pointless conversation with the stubbornly stupid. After reviewing some observations, I'll concede. Climate change is real. The climate gets cold in winter, and changes to hot in summer. Not sure how I missed that. Perhaps looking at snow falling today on trees that can only grow in the warm summer brought it to my attention. I'm just waiting for permanent summer to kick in though. Maybe next year we'll get there. If I make such a bold prediction, I'll receive instant attention. And it will not matter if I'm wrong, because everybody will forget, just like they forgot Al Gore's forecast of no arctic sea ice by the summer of 2016.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

For LE's short memory, "One of the biggest barriers is corporations, politicians, and deniers (like some people on this thread)"lying about the science and these issues to prevent the needed progress."

Ah, I understand now. The barrier is the corporations and politicians" who were the targeted audience of COP 26, as per Gord. And them nasty deniers, like me, who won't simply agree with everything you say. We’re just standing in the way of all that "progress" that the progressives are assuring us is right around the corner, if we’d just shut up and let them rule the world.

If you get rid of "corporations," who’s going to build all your windmills and solar panels, or distribute all the electricity? And if you get rid of the politicians, who will send out the tax collectors to extract the money to pay for it?

Oh, you mean the corporations and politicians that don't agree with you. Now I understand.

Ahem. This is the second time you have cast aspersions on LE (which I assume is short for Lake Effect) when in fact it was me who posted this.

I again appreciate how much you post - it is super helpful in demonstrating to all who can read these posts that your posts lack even an elementary degree of logic, coherence, or reason.
Let's take this back a second and review some logic. If I say
Entity A has attribute B
It does not mean that all A have attribute B. Nor does it mean that all those with attribute B are A.
I hope that you will agree that Exxon, Royal Dutch Shell, etc, are corporations. I doubt you will argue that they have been waging a PR campaign against ACC. Ergo, I can say that corporations are a problem. You will surely disagree.
But it is absurd for you to suggest that based on that that I believe that all corporations have that problem or that there should not be corporations. Absurd or foolish or deliberate - hard for me to know.
It also appears that you have studiously avoided my prior post on market-based solutions that take into account the real costs of energy. I prefer market-based solutions, and believe that properly regulated capitalist enterprise is an essential part of society. So, your trying to put me (or LE if that is really who you were spewing at) in some cartoonish stereotype is as pathetic as it is illogical. It's childish, really.

[newhaul]

Ok everyone what is the temperature in your abode when measured at your knees while standing? Now what is the temperature at the top of your head.

Now if you hadn't have actually measured it you would my have even noticed the average .5°F difference .
And that is man made climate control. Man has no control of the outside atmosphere .

[bcboomer]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Ahem. This is the second time you have cast aspersions on LE (which I assume is short for Lake Effect) when in fact it was me who posted this.

I again appreciate how much you post - it is super helpful in demonstrating to all who can read these posts that your posts lack even an elementary degree of logic, coherence, or reason.
Let's take this back a second and review some logic. If I say
Entity A has attribute B
It does not mean that all A have attribute B. Nor does it mean that all those with attribute B are A.
I hope that you will agree that Exxon, Royal Dutch Shell, etc, are corporations. I doubt you will argue that they have been waging a PR campaign against ACC. Ergo, I can say that corporations are a problem. You will surely disagree.
But it is absurd for you to suggest that based on that that I believe that all corporations have that problem or that there should not be corporations. Absurd or foolish or deliberate - hard for me to know.
It also appears that you have studiously avoided my prior post on market-based solutions that take into account the real costs of energy. I prefer market-based solutions, and believe that properly regulated capitalist enterprise is an essential part of society. So, your trying to put me (or LE if that is really who you were spewing at) in some cartoonish stereotype is as pathetic as it is illogical. It's childish, really.

The problem with corporations is that they are only looking at the short term benefits to their shareholders and, even more so, to their board of directors.
If they were responsible to their grandchildren their actions would benefit all of us. We would be living in a cleaner, healthier world.
I don't know the solution.

[Bycrick]

Lestersails — Oh dear. "Aspersions." No, he just complained that I’m too stupid to include posts and links. So I feel free to remind him when I take his advice.

When somebody makes a blanket statement like "get rid of the corporations/politicians/lawyers," then it might be nice if they qualified which ones they like and which should be evaporated, and why?

Don’t preach to me about eliminating subsides to oil companies/railroads/airlines/big banks and then turn around and demand subsidies for your pet project.

It’s politics. The benevolent government, pushing policies that had widespread support, created and subsidized airlines, massive building of single-family homes and urban sprawl, interstate highways to connect them, massive water projects to enable deserts in CA and AZ to produce water-hungry crops (cotton and almonds come to mind). Those are all examples of subsides creating problems. So why should I believe that doing it again, with a different set of beneficiaries, is going to solve the problems?

Of course Shell, BP, et al, have been pushing their own products. How is that morally or ethically different than Elon Musk pushing Tesla? Or the dozens of companies pushing EVs. The only difference is that you agree with one side of the argument.

And an argument the internal combustion engine is a relic that should be replaced where possible is far different from "defund the oil companies, get rid of fossil fuels, outlaw all plastics."

But nuanced arguments don’t fill rallies or generate clicks.

I do get tired of the morally-superior-warrior attitude of the climate change zealots. The science is settled, everybody who disagrees with something is a "denier" and can be dismissed as irrelevant. Or, when reminded that voters often don’t vote for green changes, being told that they’re just too ignorant to understand things. I’ll take the ignorant voters over the elitist snobs who think they’ve got all the answers.

[Bycrick]

The post by bcboomer is right on point.

The problem with corporations is that they are only looking at the short term benefits to their shareholders and, even more so, to their board of directors.
If they were responsible to their grandchildren their actions would benefit all of us. We would be living in a cleaner, healthier world.

When "business" became a matter of financial shuffling rather than producing a real product, we engendered a monster. Just ask GE. Or when IBM and AT&T gutted their basic research labs because they didn’t produce immediate revenue. Or when Boeing adopted the government/military/financial attitudes from McDonnell-Douglas.