IPCC report.

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Coastal errosion is and always has been a problem.

If the sea level rises this geanerally has a very slight reduction in the effectiveness of wave action on cliffs as the capacity for the sea to pick up rocks and throw them against the cliff is reduced.

Where low lying land is protected by sea defences these will have to be improved. The cost of that improvement is slight. Often the cost of doing the initial work for the sea defence is costly.

Given that you are convinced that the increase in sea level by possibly 1m by 2100 (although it shows no sign of doing so) is going to be bad how about you select some place on the coast which we can look at, like we look at London, and see how much extra work is needed.

Take, for example, the place pictired in the Guardian's piece. The house shown falling off the cliff has done so due to the action of waves against the coast in a place where the rock is just loose dirt sub soil. The place errodes very fast.

The soft cliff is 8m high or so. The level at which the waves hit is largely irrelavent. The process will be the same if it is only 7m above the waves.

To protect such a place it would be necessary to build decent protective structures along the coast. The decision to do so has been made that it is too expensive.

Personally If I lived there i would be looking into sorting out some sort of defences under my own inititive.

Well the challenge you set was to find something that indicated that it would be a problem. The CCC seems to think it will be a problem I have no idea how to convince Tim the plumber that it will be a problem.

You seem to have some interesting ideas about coastal erosion. However I am quite confident that if sea levels rise it would undermine cliffs faster.

I have no doubt if you had a coastal property and you tried implementing a jerry built coastal defense in the manner that you have previously suggested in the UK you would end up in court.

1, That you can't actually show a specific place where there would be any sort of problem that would require the local council there to spend more on sorting it out than the traffic light budget should ring alarm bells with you.

There is a reason you can't do this.

Appealing to vague authority will not change this.

2, If you live on the coast and you create sea defences there is little the planning department can do. It is after all not on land.

The Committee on Climate change is a vague authority? I am confident that they have a better understanding of the impacts of Climate change then me and I am confident I have a better understanding then you.

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Coastal errosion is and always has been a problem.

If the sea level rises this geanerally has a very slight reduction in the effectiveness of wave action on cliffs as the capacity for the sea to pick up rocks and throw them against the cliff is reduced.

Where low lying land is protected by sea defences these will have to be improved. The cost of that improvement is slight. Often the cost of doing the initial work for the sea defence is costly.

Given that you are convinced that the increase in sea level by possibly 1m by 2100 (although it shows no sign of doing so) is going to be bad how about you select some place on the coast which we can look at, like we look at London, and see how much extra work is needed.

Take, for example, the place pictired in the Guardian's piece. The house shown falling off the cliff has done so due to the action of waves against the coast in a place where the rock is just loose dirt sub soil. The place errodes very fast.

The soft cliff is 8m high or so. The level at which the waves hit is largely irrelavent. The process will be the same if it is only 7m above the waves.

To protect such a place it would be necessary to build decent protective structures along the coast. The decision to do so has been made that it is too expensive.

Personally If I lived there i would be looking into sorting out some sort of defences under my own inititive.

Well the challenge you set was to find something that indicated that it would be a problem. The CCC seems to think it will be a problem I have no idea how to convince Tim the plumber that it will be a problem.

You seem to have some interesting ideas about coastal erosion. However I am quite confident that if sea levels rise it would undermine cliffs faster.

I have no doubt if you had a coastal property and you tried implementing a jerry built coastal defense in the manner that you have previously suggested in the UK you would end up in court.

1, That you can't actually show a specific place where there would be any sort of problem that would require the local council there to spend more on sorting it out than the traffic light budget should ring alarm bells with you.

There is a reason you can't do this.

Appealing to vague authority will not change this.

2, If you live on the coast and you create sea defences there is little the planning department can do. It is after all not on land.

The Committee on Climate change is a vague authority? I am confident that they have a better understanding of the impacts of Climate change then me and I am confident I have a better understanding then you.

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Coastal errosion is and always has been a problem.

If the sea level rises this geanerally has a very slight reduction in the effectiveness of wave action on cliffs as the capacity for the sea to pick up rocks and throw them against the cliff is reduced.

Where low lying land is protected by sea defences these will have to be improved. The cost of that improvement is slight. Often the cost of doing the initial work for the sea defence is costly.

Given that you are convinced that the increase in sea level by possibly 1m by 2100 (although it shows no sign of doing so) is going to be bad how about you select some place on the coast which we can look at, like we look at London, and see how much extra work is needed.

Take, for example, the place pictired in the Guardian's piece. The house shown falling off the cliff has done so due to the action of waves against the coast in a place where the rock is just loose dirt sub soil. The place errodes very fast.

The soft cliff is 8m high or so. The level at which the waves hit is largely irrelavent. The process will be the same if it is only 7m above the waves.

To protect such a place it would be necessary to build decent protective structures along the coast. The decision to do so has been made that it is too expensive.

Personally If I lived there i would be looking into sorting out some sort of defences under my own inititive.

Well the challenge you set was to find something that indicated that it would be a problem. The CCC seems to think it will be a problem I have no idea how to convince Tim the plumber that it will be a problem.

You seem to have some interesting ideas about coastal erosion. However I am quite confident that if sea levels rise it would undermine cliffs faster.

I have no doubt if you had a coastal property and you tried implementing a jerry built coastal defense in the manner that you have previously suggested in the UK you would end up in court.

1, That you can't actually show a specific place where there would be any sort of problem that would require the local council there to spend more on sorting it out than the traffic light budget should ring alarm bells with you.

There is a reason you can't do this.

Appealing to vague authority will not change this.

2, If you live on the coast and you create sea defences there is little the planning department can do. It is after all not on land.

The Committee on Climate change is a vague authority? I am confident that they have a better understanding of the impacts of Climate change then me and I am confident I have a better understanding then you.

Well then you will be able to show a specific local council anywhere in the world, choose your own cherry, and show which bad effect of a slightly warmer world will cause that council to have to spend more than a trivail amount of it's budget to sort it out.

I will use the cost level of traffic lights. That is compared to the general budget of any council the amount ot spends on traffic lights is trivial.

Same challenge as always you need to explian in your own words the bad thing, the mechanism between the warming and the bad thing, cite the council, cite the supporting science that explains the mechanism of the bad thing.

Should be easy for somebody of your vast knowledge.

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Coastal errosion is and always has been a problem.

If the sea level rises this geanerally has a very slight reduction in the effectiveness of wave action on cliffs as the capacity for the sea to pick up rocks and throw them against the cliff is reduced.

Where low lying land is protected by sea defences these will have to be improved. The cost of that improvement is slight. Often the cost of doing the initial work for the sea defence is costly.

Given that you are convinced that the increase in sea level by possibly 1m by 2100 (although it shows no sign of doing so) is going to be bad how about you select some place on the coast which we can look at, like we look at London, and see how much extra work is needed.

Take, for example, the place pictired in the Guardian's piece. The house shown falling off the cliff has done so due to the action of waves against the coast in a place where the rock is just loose dirt sub soil. The place errodes very fast.

The soft cliff is 8m high or so. The level at which the waves hit is largely irrelavent. The process will be the same if it is only 7m above the waves.

To protect such a place it would be necessary to build decent protective structures along the coast. The decision to do so has been made that it is too expensive.

Personally If I lived there i would be looking into sorting out some sort of defences under my own inititive.

Well the challenge you set was to find something that indicated that it would be a problem. The CCC seems to think it will be a problem I have no idea how to convince Tim the plumber that it will be a problem.

You seem to have some interesting ideas about coastal erosion. However I am quite confident that if sea levels rise it would undermine cliffs faster.

I have no doubt if you had a coastal property and you tried implementing a jerry built coastal defense in the manner that you have previously suggested in the UK you would end up in court.

1, That you can't actually show a specific place where there would be any sort of problem that would require the local council there to spend more on sorting it out than the traffic light budget should ring alarm bells with you.

There is a reason you can't do this.

Appealing to vague authority will not change this.

2, If you live on the coast and you create sea defences there is little the planning department can do. It is after all not on land.

The Committee on Climate change is a vague authority? I am confident that they have a better understanding of the impacts of Climate change then me and I am confident I have a better understanding then you.

They can't even DEFINE 'climate change'. You can't either!

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Coastal errosion is and always has been a problem.

If the sea level rises this geanerally has a very slight reduction in the effectiveness of wave action on cliffs as the capacity for the sea to pick up rocks and throw them against the cliff is reduced.

Where low lying land is protected by sea defences these will have to be improved. The cost of that improvement is slight. Often the cost of doing the initial work for the sea defence is costly.

Given that you are convinced that the increase in sea level by possibly 1m by 2100 (although it shows no sign of doing so) is going to be bad how about you select some place on the coast which we can look at, like we look at London, and see how much extra work is needed.

Take, for example, the place pictired in the Guardian's piece. The house shown falling off the cliff has done so due to the action of waves against the coast in a place where the rock is just loose dirt sub soil. The place errodes very fast.

The soft cliff is 8m high or so. The level at which the waves hit is largely irrelavent. The process will be the same if it is only 7m above the waves.

To protect such a place it would be necessary to build decent protective structures along the coast. The decision to do so has been made that it is too expensive.

Personally If I lived there i would be looking into sorting out some sort of defences under my own inititive.

Well the challenge you set was to find something that indicated that it would be a problem. The CCC seems to think it will be a problem I have no idea how to convince Tim the plumber that it will be a problem.

You seem to have some interesting ideas about coastal erosion. However I am quite confident that if sea levels rise it would undermine cliffs faster.

I have no doubt if you had a coastal property and you tried implementing a jerry built coastal defense in the manner that you have previously suggested in the UK you would end up in court.

1, That you can't actually show a specific place where there would be any sort of problem that would require the local council there to spend more on sorting it out than the traffic light budget should ring alarm bells with you.

There is a reason you can't do this.

Appealing to vague authority will not change this.

2, If you live on the coast and you create sea defences there is little the planning department can do. It is after all not on land.

The Committee on Climate change is a vague authority? I am confident that they have a better understanding of the impacts of Climate change then me and I am confident I have a better understanding then you.

They can't even DEFINE 'climate change'. You can't either!

I'm sure they have access to a dictionary

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Coastal errosion is and always has been a problem.

If the sea level rises this geanerally has a very slight reduction in the effectiveness of wave action on cliffs as the capacity for the sea to pick up rocks and throw them against the cliff is reduced.

Where low lying land is protected by sea defences these will have to be improved. The cost of that improvement is slight. Often the cost of doing the initial work for the sea defence is costly.

Given that you are convinced that the increase in sea level by possibly 1m by 2100 (although it shows no sign of doing so) is going to be bad how about you select some place on the coast which we can look at, like we look at London, and see how much extra work is needed.

Take, for example, the place pictired in the Guardian's piece. The house shown falling off the cliff has done so due to the action of waves against the coast in a place where the rock is just loose dirt sub soil. The place errodes very fast.

The soft cliff is 8m high or so. The level at which the waves hit is largely irrelavent. The process will be the same if it is only 7m above the waves.

To protect such a place it would be necessary to build decent protective structures along the coast. The decision to do so has been made that it is too expensive.

Personally If I lived there i would be looking into sorting out some sort of defences under my own inititive.

Well the challenge you set was to find something that indicated that it would be a problem. The CCC seems to think it will be a problem I have no idea how to convince Tim the plumber that it will be a problem.

You seem to have some interesting ideas about coastal erosion. However I am quite confident that if sea levels rise it would undermine cliffs faster.

I have no doubt if you had a coastal property and you tried implementing a jerry built coastal defense in the manner that you have previously suggested in the UK you would end up in court.

1, That you can't actually show a specific place where there would be any sort of problem that would require the local council there to spend more on sorting it out than the traffic light budget should ring alarm bells with you.

There is a reason you can't do this.

Appealing to vague authority will not change this.

2, If you live on the coast and you create sea defences there is little the planning department can do. It is after all not on land.

The Committee on Climate change is a vague authority? I am confident that they have a better understanding of the impacts of Climate change then me and I am confident I have a better understanding then you.

They can't even DEFINE 'climate change'. You can't either!

I'm sure they have access to a dictionary

Dictionaries don't define words. Define 'climate change'.

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Coastal errosion is and always has been a problem.

If the sea level rises this geanerally has a very slight reduction in the effectiveness of wave action on cliffs as the capacity for the sea to pick up rocks and throw them against the cliff is reduced.

Where low lying land is protected by sea defences these will have to be improved. The cost of that improvement is slight. Often the cost of doing the initial work for the sea defence is costly.

Given that you are convinced that the increase in sea level by possibly 1m by 2100 (although it shows no sign of doing so) is going to be bad how about you select some place on the coast which we can look at, like we look at London, and see how much extra work is needed.

Take, for example, the place pictired in the Guardian's piece. The house shown falling off the cliff has done so due to the action of waves against the coast in a place where the rock is just loose dirt sub soil. The place errodes very fast.

The soft cliff is 8m high or so. The level at which the waves hit is largely irrelavent. The process will be the same if it is only 7m above the waves.

To protect such a place it would be necessary to build decent protective structures along the coast. The decision to do so has been made that it is too expensive.

Personally If I lived there i would be looking into sorting out some sort of defences under my own inititive.

Well the challenge you set was to find something that indicated that it would be a problem. The CCC seems to think it will be a problem I have no idea how to convince Tim the plumber that it will be a problem.

You seem to have some interesting ideas about coastal erosion. However I am quite confident that if sea levels rise it would undermine cliffs faster.

I have no doubt if you had a coastal property and you tried implementing a jerry built coastal defense in the manner that you have previously suggested in the UK you would end up in court.

1, That you can't actually show a specific place where there would be any sort of problem that would require the local council there to spend more on sorting it out than the traffic light budget should ring alarm bells with you.

There is a reason you can't do this.

Appealing to vague authority will not change this.

2, If you live on the coast and you create sea defences there is little the planning department can do. It is after all not on land.

The Committee on Climate change is a vague authority? I am confident that they have a better understanding of the impacts of Climate change then me and I am confident I have a better understanding then you.

Well then you will be able to show a specific local council anywhere in the world, choose your own cherry, and show which bad effect of a slightly warmer world will cause that council to have to spend more than a trivail amount of it's budget to sort it out.

I will use the cost level of traffic lights. That is compared to the general budget of any council the amount ot spends on traffic lights is trivial.

Same challenge as always you need to explian in your own words the bad thing, the mechanism between the warming and the bad thing, cite the council, cite the supporting science that explains the mechanism of the bad thing.

Should be easy for somebody of your vast knowledge.

What a lot of homework, as I said before to do it properly would take FOI requests.

I don't have vast knowledge I just don't make crap up.

The CCC report seems adequate to show that globall warming will have a greatly more then a trivial effect on our descendants.

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Coastal errosion is and always has been a problem.

If the sea level rises this geanerally has a very slight reduction in the effectiveness of wave action on cliffs as the capacity for the sea to pick up rocks and throw them against the cliff is reduced.

Where low lying land is protected by sea defences these will have to be improved. The cost of that improvement is slight. Often the cost of doing the initial work for the sea defence is costly.

Given that you are convinced that the increase in sea level by possibly 1m by 2100 (although it shows no sign of doing so) is going to be bad how about you select some place on the coast which we can look at, like we look at London, and see how much extra work is needed.

Take, for example, the place pictired in the Guardian's piece. The house shown falling off the cliff has done so due to the action of waves against the coast in a place where the rock is just loose dirt sub soil. The place errodes very fast.

The soft cliff is 8m high or so. The level at which the waves hit is largely irrelavent. The process will be the same if it is only 7m above the waves.

To protect such a place it would be necessary to build decent protective structures along the coast. The decision to do so has been made that it is too expensive.

Personally If I lived there i would be looking into sorting out some sort of defences under my own inititive.

Well the challenge you set was to find something that indicated that it would be a problem. The CCC seems to think it will be a problem I have no idea how to convince Tim the plumber that it will be a problem.

You seem to have some interesting ideas about coastal erosion. However I am quite confident that if sea levels rise it would undermine cliffs faster.

I have no doubt if you had a coastal property and you tried implementing a jerry built coastal defense in the manner that you have previously suggested in the UK you would end up in court.

1, That you can't actually show a specific place where there would be any sort of problem that would require the local council there to spend more on sorting it out than the traffic light budget should ring alarm bells with you.

There is a reason you can't do this.

Appealing to vague authority will not change this.

2, If you live on the coast and you create sea defences there is little the planning department can do. It is after all not on land.

The Committee on Climate change is a vague authority? I am confident that they have a better understanding of the impacts of Climate change then me and I am confident I have a better understanding then you.

They can't even DEFINE 'climate change'. You can't either!

I'm sure they have access to a dictionary

Dictionaries don't define words. Define 'climate change'.

**** off twat

James___ wrote:
..I like where they say Americans are only concerned about taking care of their own households. Why we have problems the Dutch don't have.

.And yes, storm surges are a part of climate change as they cause the sea level to rise flooding coastal areas.

...deleted Holy Link...
..About Florida in the U.S.;

...deleted Holy Link...

Tim the plumber wrote:
color=navy]
I don't need exact figures. Just a general back of an envelope guess. If the numbers are out by a factor of 3 it will do.

The point is you are unable to show anywhere in the world where it will be more than a trivial problem.[/color]

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
color=navy]
I don't need exact figures. Just a general back of an envelope guess. If the numbers are out by a factor of 3 it will do.

The point is you are unable to show anywhere in the world where it will be more than a trivial problem.[/color]

I've done as you have asked once already. London with it's urbanization and high density of traffic lights spends more on flood defense then traffic lights. my work was very back of an envelope. I found more is spent on flood defenses then traffic lights However I suspect any reasonable person would see that its likely that on average that other areas would have less traffic lights. If you feel that repeating the exercise picking somewhere else would prove anything you are free to do it yourself.

However we were not discussing present impacts we are discussing future impacts.

You are saying that I can not show that any impacts of climate change will be bad. Sea levels are just one of many examples. You say I have no proof that sea level rise is a problem. I direct you to the work of the committee on climate change. You reject that as an appeal to authority.

Where I do the work myself you seem to forget what I wrote in two posts and simply repeat the falsehood that traffic lights cost far more then flood defenses anywhere you care to examine.

You aren't arguing in good faith.

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
color=navy]
I don't need exact figures. Just a general back of an envelope guess. If the numbers are out by a factor of 3 it will do.

The point is you are unable to show anywhere in the world where it will be more than a trivial problem.[/color]

I've done as you have asked once already. London with it's urbanization and high density of traffic lights spends more on flood defense then traffic lights. my work was very back of an envelope. I found more is spent on flood defenses then traffic lights However I suspect any reasonable person would see that its likely that on average that other areas would have less traffic lights. If you feel that repeating the exercise picking somewhere else would prove anything you are free to do it yourself.

However we were not discussing present impacts we are discussing future impacts.

You are saying that I can not show that any impacts of climate change will be bad. Sea levels are just one of many examples. You say I have no proof that sea level rise is a problem. I direct you to the work of the committee on climate change. You reject that as an appeal to authority.

Where I do the work myself you seem to forget what I wrote in two posts and simply repeat the falsehood that traffic lights cost far more then flood defenses anywhere you care to examine.

You aren't arguing in good faith.

1, The traffic ligts cost you quoted was for a simple set of traffic lights. We in the UK go in for very complex ones. They also probably have a half life of 30 years of so before they are changed as the roads are remodeled. Also the maintenance costs are in addition to that.

2, The additional cost of adding 1m to the 6m or whatever Thames barrier would not be as much as the whole barrier.

So clearly London will not be expecting any problem from sea level rise that is more costly than its' traffic lights.

If this threat, or set of threats, were sp very very scary that we should be accepting the vast problems of ecconomic devastation that would be the price the greens want us to spend then the actual problems would be easy to detail.

You know this really. It is just your wish to not loose your religion.

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
color=navy]
I don't need exact figures. Just a general back of an envelope guess. If the numbers are out by a factor of 3 it will do.

The point is you are unable to show anywhere in the world where it will be more than a trivial problem.[/color]

I've done as you have asked once already. London with it's urbanization and high density of traffic lights spends more on flood defense then traffic lights. my work was very back of an envelope. I found more is spent on flood defenses then traffic lights However I suspect any reasonable person would see that its likely that on average that other areas would have less traffic lights. If you feel that repeating the exercise picking somewhere else would prove anything you are free to do it yourself.

However we were not discussing present impacts we are discussing future impacts.

You are saying that I can not show that any impacts of climate change will be bad. Sea levels are just one of many examples. You say I have no proof that sea level rise is a problem. I direct you to the work of the committee on climate change. You reject that as an appeal to authority.

Where I do the work myself you seem to forget what I wrote in two posts and simply repeat the falsehood that traffic lights cost far more then flood defenses anywhere you care to examine.

You aren't arguing in good faith.

1, The traffic ligts cost you quoted was for a simple set of traffic lights. We in the UK go in for very complex ones. They also probably have a half life of 30 years of so before they are changed as the roads are remodeled. Also the maintenance costs are in addition to that.

2, The additional cost of adding 1m to the 6m or whatever Thames barrier would not be as much as the whole barrier.

So clearly London will not be expecting any problem from sea level rise that is more costly than its' traffic lights.

If this threat, or set of threats, were sp very very scary that we should be accepting the vast problems of ecconomic devastation that would be the price the greens want us to spend then the actual problems would be easy to detail.

You know this really. It is just your wish to not loose your religion.

I feel if you looked into it a set of traffic lights is not as much as I quoted.

As I said if you have better information feel free to post it.

As far as I can tell you are just using figures you pulled out of your ass, again.

The threats are published not by me, not by the "greens" but by the CCC.

You can chose to ignore it.

Its not a religion you aren't going to go to hell for wrong beliefs. You are the one that seems upset that people have a different opinion to you.

Into the Night wrote:


The Church of Global Warming is a religion. It has an initial circular argument. It extends arguments from that. It's a religion. Worse, it is a religion based on meaningless buzzwords, which is why it is a fundamentalist religion.

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:


The Church of Global Warming is a religion. It has an initial circular argument. It extends arguments from that. It's a religion. Worse, it is a religion based on meaningless buzzwords, which is why it is a fundamentalist religion.

I think you should speak to someone about changing the dose on your medication.

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
color=navy]
I don't need exact figures. Just a general back of an envelope guess. If the numbers are out by a factor of 3 it will do.

The point is you are unable to show anywhere in the world where it will be more than a trivial problem.[/color]

I've done as you have asked once already. London with it's urbanization and high density of traffic lights spends more on flood defense then traffic lights. my work was very back of an envelope. I found more is spent on flood defenses then traffic lights However I suspect any reasonable person would see that its likely that on average that other areas would have less traffic lights. If you feel that repeating the exercise picking somewhere else would prove anything you are free to do it yourself.

However we were not discussing present impacts we are discussing future impacts.

You are saying that I can not show that any impacts of climate change will be bad. Sea levels are just one of many examples. You say I have no proof that sea level rise is a problem. I direct you to the work of the committee on climate change. You reject that as an appeal to authority.

Where I do the work myself you seem to forget what I wrote in two posts and simply repeat the falsehood that traffic lights cost far more then flood defenses anywhere you care to examine.

You aren't arguing in good faith.

1, The traffic ligts cost you quoted was for a simple set of traffic lights. We in the UK go in for very complex ones. They also probably have a half life of 30 years of so before they are changed as the roads are remodeled. Also the maintenance costs are in addition to that.

2, The additional cost of adding 1m to the 6m or whatever Thames barrier would not be as much as the whole barrier.

So clearly London will not be expecting any problem from sea level rise that is more costly than its' traffic lights.

If this threat, or set of threats, were sp very very scary that we should be accepting the vast problems of ecconomic devastation that would be the price the greens want us to spend then the actual problems would be easy to detail.

You know this really. It is just your wish to not loose your religion.

I feel if you looked into it a set of traffic lights is not as much as I quoted.

As I said if you have better information feel free to post it.

As far as I can tell you are just using figures you pulled out of your ass, again.

The threats are published not by me, not by the "greens" but by the CCC.

You can chose to ignore it.

Its not a religion you aren't going to go to hell for wrong beliefs. You are the one that seems upset that people have a different opinion to you.

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
color=navy]
I don't need exact figures. Just a general back of an envelope guess. If the numbers are out by a factor of 3 it will do.

The point is you are unable to show anywhere in the world where it will be more than a trivial problem.[/color]

I've done as you have asked once already. London with it's urbanization and high density of traffic lights spends more on flood defense then traffic lights. my work was very back of an envelope. I found more is spent on flood defenses then traffic lights However I suspect any reasonable person would see that its likely that on average that other areas would have less traffic lights. If you feel that repeating the exercise picking somewhere else would prove anything you are free to do it yourself.

However we were not discussing present impacts we are discussing future impacts.

You are saying that I can not show that any impacts of climate change will be bad. Sea levels are just one of many examples. You say I have no proof that sea level rise is a problem. I direct you to the work of the committee on climate change. You reject that as an appeal to authority.

Where I do the work myself you seem to forget what I wrote in two posts and simply repeat the falsehood that traffic lights cost far more then flood defenses anywhere you care to examine.

You aren't arguing in good faith.

1, The traffic ligts cost you quoted was for a simple set of traffic lights. We in the UK go in for very complex ones. They also probably have a half life of 30 years of so before they are changed as the roads are remodeled. Also the maintenance costs are in addition to that.

2, The additional cost of adding 1m to the 6m or whatever Thames barrier would not be as much as the whole barrier.

So clearly London will not be expecting any problem from sea level rise that is more costly than its' traffic lights.

If this threat, or set of threats, were sp very very scary that we should be accepting the vast problems of ecconomic devastation that would be the price the greens want us to spend then the actual problems would be easy to detail.

You know this really. It is just your wish to not loose your religion.

I feel if you looked into it a set of traffic lights is not as much as I quoted.

As I said if you have better information feel free to post it.

As far as I can tell you are just using figures you pulled out of your ass, again.

The threats are published not by me, not by the "greens" but by the CCC.

You can chose to ignore it.

Its not a religion you aren't going to go to hell for wrong beliefs. You are the one that seems upset that people have a different opinion to you.

That we are debating if traffic lights cost more or less than the Thames barrier that protects London from exceptional sea level rise in storms shows that the additional 1m of defense possibly required will be less will be significant to the budget of London's various councils.

If this doom is real then you will be able to show where and how such a doom is actually going to happen in a little detail.

Not hard.

James___ wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
color=navy]
I don't need exact figures. Just a general back of an envelope guess. If the numbers are out by a factor of 3 it will do.

The point is you are unable to show anywhere in the world where it will be more than a trivial problem.[/color]

I've done as you have asked once already. London with it's urbanization and high density of traffic lights spends more on flood defense then traffic lights. my work was very back of an envelope. I found more is spent on flood defenses then traffic lights However I suspect any reasonable person would see that its likely that on average that other areas would have less traffic lights. If you feel that repeating the exercise picking somewhere else would prove anything you are free to do it yourself.

However we were not discussing present impacts we are discussing future impacts.

You are saying that I can not show that any impacts of climate change will be bad. Sea levels are just one of many examples. You say I have no proof that sea level rise is a problem. I direct you to the work of the committee on climate change. You reject that as an appeal to authority.

Where I do the work myself you seem to forget what I wrote in two posts and simply repeat the falsehood that traffic lights cost far more then flood defenses anywhere you care to examine.

You aren't arguing in good faith.

1, The traffic ligts cost you quoted was for a simple set of traffic lights. We in the UK go in for very complex ones. They also probably have a half life of 30 years of so before they are changed as the roads are remodeled. Also the maintenance costs are in addition to that.

2, The additional cost of adding 1m to the 6m or whatever Thames barrier would not be as much as the whole barrier.

So clearly London will not be expecting any problem from sea level rise that is more costly than its' traffic lights.

If this threat, or set of threats, were sp very very scary that we should be accepting the vast problems of ecconomic devastation that would be the price the greens want us to spend then the actual problems would be easy to detail.

You know this really. It is just your wish to not loose your religion.

I feel if you looked into it a set of traffic lights is not as much as I quoted.

As I said if you have better information feel free to post it.

As far as I can tell you are just using figures you pulled out of your ass, again.

The threats are published not by me, not by the "greens" but by the CCC.

You can chose to ignore it.

Its not a religion you aren't going to go to hell for wrong beliefs. You are the one that seems upset that people have a different opinion to you.

That we are debating if traffic lights cost more or less than the Thames barrier that protects London from exceptional sea level rise in storms shows that the additional 1m of defense possibly required will be less will be significant to the budget of London's various councils.

If this doom is real then you will be able to show where and how such a doom is actually going to happen in a little detail.

Not hard.

..It's already known that storm surges cause more damage because of rising sea levels. What more do you need to know? You can't consider the long term effect because you seem to understand little of geology and natural processes like Wake, itn, et al.

..p.s., what you and your friends have been ignoring is the erosion caused by storm surges and the more flooding they cause the more erosion over time that can occur. At the same time rivers and dikes might be blocked by silt which then would require dredging which can be as expensive but not as expensive of having to move all facilities on the waterfront into areas which are already populated. This is where you guys keep asking for an environmental impact statement which you guys would reject anyway saying that engineers would not know what you guys do.
..You guys are smart though, you want things proven to you while you do nothing yourself except make demands. And by making demands you are wrongly assuming that you are right and must be proven wrong. A typical Republican Party tactic.

James___ wrote:
..It's already known that storm surges cause more damage because of rising sea levels.

James___ wrote:
What more do you need to know?

James___ wrote:
You can't consider the long term effect because you seem to understand little of geology and natural processes like Wake, itn, et al.

James___ wrote:
..p.s., what you and your friends have been ignoring is the erosion caused by storm surges and the more flooding they cause the more erosion over time that can occur.

James___ wrote:
At the same time rivers and dikes might be blocked by silt

James___ wrote:
which then would require dredging which can be as expensive

James___ wrote:
but not as expensive of having to move all facilities on the waterfront into areas which are already populated.

James___ wrote:
This is where you guys keep asking for an environmental impact statement which you guys would reject anyway

James___ wrote:
saying that engineers would not know what you guys do.

James___ wrote:
..You guys are smart though, you want things proven to you while you do nothing yourself except make demands.

James___ wrote:
And by making demands you are wrongly assuming that you are right and must be proven wrong.

A typical Republican Party tactic.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
..It's already known that storm surges cause more damage because of rising sea levels.

Storms don't cause the sea level to rise. They may cause local waters underneath them to rise somewhat due to pressure loss.

James___ wrote:
What more do you need to know?

Apparently YOU need to know quite a bit more than you know.

James___ wrote:
You can't consider the long term effect because you seem to understand little of geology and natural processes like Wake, itn, et al.

Storms don't last for very long. They don't cause a long term erosion. The damage they do is all done during the storm itself.

James___ wrote:
..p.s., what you and your friends have been ignoring is the erosion caused by storm surges and the more flooding they cause the more erosion over time that can occur.

Storms don't last very long. There is no long term erosion from a storm.

James___ wrote:
At the same time rivers and dikes might be blocked by silt

A dike is not 'blocked' by anything. It's a dike. It just sits there. It IS a block.
Rivers are not blocked by silt. The most silt can do is redirect the course of a river. The river still flows.

James___ wrote:
which then would require dredging which can be as expensive

Dredging is cheaper than you think. We do it already for navigable rivers, to keep the ship traffic moving.

James___ wrote:
but not as expensive of having to move all facilities on the waterfront into areas which are already populated.

We already dredge for this too. Dredging keeps a river from redirecting into the town. So do dikes and barriers.

James___ wrote:
This is where you guys keep asking for an environmental impact statement which you guys would reject anyway

Compositional error involving people as the class...bigotry.

James___ wrote:
saying that engineers would not know what you guys do.

Who is 'you'? Bureaucrats? Engineers know what bureaucrats do...essentially nothing productive.

James___ wrote:
..You guys are smart though, you want things proven to you while you do nothing yourself except make demands.

Maybe you are talking about Harvey the rabbit.

James___ wrote:
And by making demands you are wrongly assuming that you are right and must be proven wrong.

A typical Republican Party tactic.

You're trying to describe the Republican party???

Did you know that conservatives don't like environmental impact statements? Did you know they generally don't demand anything except the law being followed? Did you know that making a demand to follow the law doesn't assume anything?

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
..It's already known that storm surges cause more damage because of rising sea levels.

Storms don't cause the sea level to rise. They may cause local waters underneath them to rise somewhat due to pressure loss.

James___ wrote:
What more do you need to know?

Apparently YOU need to know quite a bit more than you know.

James___ wrote:
You can't consider the long term effect because you seem to understand little of geology and natural processes like Wake, itn, et al.

Storms don't last for very long. They don't cause a long term erosion. The damage they do is all done during the storm itself.

James___ wrote:
..p.s., what you and your friends have been ignoring is the erosion caused by storm surges and the more flooding they cause the more erosion over time that can occur.

Storms don't last very long. There is no long term erosion from a storm.

James___ wrote:
At the same time rivers and dikes might be blocked by silt

A dike is not 'blocked' by anything. It's a dike. It just sits there. It IS a block.
Rivers are not blocked by silt. The most silt can do is redirect the course of a river. The river still flows.

James___ wrote:
which then would require dredging which can be as expensive

Dredging is cheaper than you think. We do it already for navigable rivers, to keep the ship traffic moving.

James___ wrote:
but not as expensive of having to move all facilities on the waterfront into areas which are already populated.

We already dredge for this too. Dredging keeps a river from redirecting into the town. So do dikes and barriers.

James___ wrote:
This is where you guys keep asking for an environmental impact statement which you guys would reject anyway

Compositional error involving people as the class...bigotry.

James___ wrote:
saying that engineers would not know what you guys do.

Who is 'you'? Bureaucrats? Engineers know what bureaucrats do...essentially nothing productive.

James___ wrote:
..You guys are smart though, you want things proven to you while you do nothing yourself except make demands.

Maybe you are talking about Harvey the rabbit.

James___ wrote:
And by making demands you are wrongly assuming that you are right and must be proven wrong.

A typical Republican Party tactic.

You're trying to describe the Republican party???

Did you know that conservatives don't like environmental impact statements? Did you know they generally don't demand anything except the law being followed? Did you know that making a demand to follow the law doesn't assume anything?

And the Puget Sound isn't the Salish Sea while the Duwamish is a river. Things people who knows Seattle knows. So what's your point?

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
..It's already known that storm surges cause more damage because of rising sea levels.

Storms don't cause the sea level to rise. They may cause local waters underneath them to rise somewhat due to pressure loss.

James___ wrote:
What more do you need to know?

Apparently YOU need to know quite a bit more than you know.

James___ wrote:
You can't consider the long term effect because you seem to understand little of geology and natural processes like Wake, itn, et al.

Storms don't last for very long. They don't cause a long term erosion. The damage they do is all done during the storm itself.

James___ wrote:
..p.s., what you and your friends have been ignoring is the erosion caused by storm surges and the more flooding they cause the more erosion over time that can occur.

Storms don't last very long. There is no long term erosion from a storm.

James___ wrote:
At the same time rivers and dikes might be blocked by silt

A dike is not 'blocked' by anything. It's a dike. It just sits there. It IS a block.
Rivers are not blocked by silt. The most silt can do is redirect the course of a river. The river still flows.

James___ wrote:
which then would require dredging which can be as expensive

Dredging is cheaper than you think. We do it already for navigable rivers, to keep the ship traffic moving.

James___ wrote:
but not as expensive of having to move all facilities on the waterfront into areas which are already populated.

We already dredge for this too. Dredging keeps a river from redirecting into the town. So do dikes and barriers.

James___ wrote:
This is where you guys keep asking for an environmental impact statement which you guys would reject anyway

Compositional error involving people as the class...bigotry.

James___ wrote:
saying that engineers would not know what you guys do.

Who is 'you'? Bureaucrats? Engineers know what bureaucrats do...essentially nothing productive.

James___ wrote:
..You guys are smart though, you want things proven to you while you do nothing yourself except make demands.

Maybe you are talking about Harvey the rabbit.

James___ wrote:
And by making demands you are wrongly assuming that you are right and must be proven wrong.

A typical Republican Party tactic.

You're trying to describe the Republican party???

Did you know that conservatives don't like environmental impact statements? Did you know they generally don't demand anything except the law being followed? Did you know that making a demand to follow the law doesn't assume anything?

And the Puget Sound isn't the Salish Sea while the Duwamish is a river. Things people who knows Seattle knows. So what's your point?

That you make no sense. You wander from one topic to the next with no connection between them, throw in a bunch of buzzwords from science that you don't understand, then get all paranoid when someone starts to call you on it.

Into the Night wrote:
WTF?? Now you go on and on about the waters of the Pacific Northwest??? More random thoughts???

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
WTF?? Now you go on and on about the waters of the Pacific Northwest??? More random thoughts???

..As you said, a person should speak from experience. You have none to speak from. That's why you can't understand anything.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
WTF?? Now you go on and on about the waters of the Pacific Northwest??? More random thoughts???

..As you said, a person should speak from experience. You have none to speak from. That's why you can't understand anything.

A general insult that has nothing to do with your previous wanderings now???

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
WTF?? Now you go on and on about the waters of the Pacific Northwest??? More random thoughts???

..As you said, a person should speak from experience. You have none to speak from. That's why you can't understand anything.

A general insult that has nothing to do with your previous wanderings now???

..I think your comment is what you'd refer to as an inversion fallacy. I said nothing insulting. I merely stated an observation.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
WTF?? Now you go on and on about the waters of the Pacific Northwest??? More random thoughts???

..As you said, a person should speak from experience. You have none to speak from. That's why you can't understand anything.

A general insult that has nothing to do with your previous wanderings now???

..I think your comment is what you'd refer to as an inversion fallacy. I said nothing insulting. I merely stated an observation.

No, it was an insult.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
WTF?? Now you go on and on about the waters of the Pacific Northwest??? More random thoughts???

..As you said, a person should speak from experience. You have none to speak from. That's why you can't understand anything.

A general insult that has nothing to do with your previous wanderings now???

..I think your comment is what you'd refer to as an inversion fallacy. I said nothing insulting. I merely stated an observation.

No, it was an insult.

..Sometimes people find the truth offensive. I think that is what you're doing now.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
WTF?? Now you go on and on about the waters of the Pacific Northwest??? More random thoughts???

..As you said, a person should speak from experience. You have none to speak from. That's why you can't understand anything.

A general insult that has nothing to do with your previous wanderings now???

..I think your comment is what you'd refer to as an inversion fallacy. I said nothing insulting. I merely stated an observation.

No, it was an insult.

..Sometimes people find the truth offensive. I think that is what you're doing now.

An insult is not a truth. It is a fallacy.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
WTF?? Now you go on and on about the waters of the Pacific Northwest??? More random thoughts???

..As you said, a person should speak from experience. You have none to speak from. That's why you can't understand anything.

A general insult that has nothing to do with your previous wanderings now???

..I think your comment is what you'd refer to as an inversion fallacy. I said nothing insulting. I merely stated an observation.

No, it was an insult.

..Sometimes people find the truth offensive. I think that is what you're doing now.

An insult is not a truth. It is a fallacy.

..You just showed what is insulting. You don't debate climate change, you debate the fallacy of your logic. That's insulting.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
WTF?? Now you go on and on about the waters of the Pacific Northwest??? More random thoughts???

..As you said, a person should speak from experience. You have none to speak from. That's why you can't understand anything.

A general insult that has nothing to do with your previous wanderings now???

..I think your comment is what you'd refer to as an inversion fallacy. I said nothing insulting. I merely stated an observation.

No, it was an insult.

..Sometimes people find the truth offensive. I think that is what you're doing now.

An insult is not a truth. It is a fallacy.

..You just showed what is insulting. You don't debate climate change, you debate the fallacy of your logic. That's insulting.

Contextomy fallacy. Define 'climate change'. Logic is not a fallacy.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
WTF?? Now you go on and on about the waters of the Pacific Northwest??? More random thoughts???

..As you said, a person should speak from experience. You have none to speak from. That's why you can't understand anything.

A general insult that has nothing to do with your previous wanderings now???

..I think your comment is what you'd refer to as an inversion fallacy. I said nothing insulting. I merely stated an observation.

No, it was an insult.

..Sometimes people find the truth offensive. I think that is what you're doing now.

An insult is not a truth. It is a fallacy.

..You just showed what is insulting. You don't debate climate change, you debate the fallacy of your logic. That's insulting.

Contextomy fallacy. Define 'climate change'. Logic is not a fallacy.

..I've already defined climate change.

James___ wrote:
Climate change is when the climate changes.

James___ wrote:
..When leaves change from being green because it's no longer summer, the climate has changed.

James___ wrote:
When bears go into hibernation the climate has changed.

James___ wrote:
..I just wonder how someone can live around Seattle and not know this.

James___ wrote:
Maybe because there are no maple trees or bears in Seattle.
...removed irrelevant portion...

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
Climate change is when the climate changes.

You can't define 'climate change' with itself!

James___ wrote:
..When leaves change from being green because it's no longer summer, the climate has changed.

Nope. That's the season changing.

James___ wrote:
When bears go into hibernation the climate has changed.

Nope. That's the season changing.

James___ wrote:
..I just wonder how someone can live around Seattle and not know this.

There are plenty of people in Seattle that have no clue, just like you.

James___ wrote:
Maybe because there are no maple trees or bears in Seattle.
...removed irrelevant portion...

We have both.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
Climate change is when the climate changes.

You can't define 'climate change' with itself!

James___ wrote:
..When leaves change from being green because it's no longer summer, the climate has changed.

Nope. That's the season changing.

James___ wrote:
When bears go into hibernation the climate has changed.

Nope. That's the season changing.

James___ wrote:
..I just wonder how someone can live around Seattle and not know this.

There are plenty of people in Seattle that have no clue, just like you.

James___ wrote:
Maybe because there are no maple trees or bears in Seattle.
...removed irrelevant portion...

We have both.

Stop arguing with James. He is not using logic, but rather emotions and you cannot change someone's mind by not addressing his emotional response.

Almost the entire climate change crowd is based solely on emotional responses to perceived threats. These threats are generated by very poor science but once the cat is out of the bag all the True Believers have to say is that "the rich" are against anything because they would lose money. This again elicits an emotional response because True Believers are almost entirely uneducated in the sciences and have nothing to fall back on but emotion.

1. Why would anyone that had money not want to take any actions necessary to "save the world" if indeed it needed saving? Most of them have families that would be here in this threatened future.

2. The word "climate scientist" is an entirely invented word. Climate is such a complex subject that it requires PhD level training on virtually every science we know. So there are no such things as "climate scientists". No degrees are awarded in such a thing and those who have "proved" the climate is changing have been successfully sued.

3. Dr. Michael Mann recently lost his law suit in Canada when he would not present his "temperature data" because it had been counterfeited. Recently the NASA temperature records have been shown to be totally and bizarrely combined from many sources and are essentially useless.

4. The IPCC is not a scientific body but a political one. Politicians have been trying to use the emotional responses of the True Believers to obtain and retain political power. This is being supported 100% by the world wide media. This is in such a manner that it is pretty plain to see that there is a very large power behind the thrown. My guess is George Soros who has become a billionaire destroying entire country's currencies. He is personally familiar with how the NAZI's used psychological warfare and the climate change and socialist media of the US show his fingerprints all over them. What he isn't prepared for is the resilience of the American people.

5. So again, arguing with a True Believer is useless. Since they do not respond to fact or logic you are going to get nowhere.

spot wrote:
I don't have vast knowledge I just don't make crap up.

The CCC report seems adequate to show that globall warming will have a greatly more then a trivial effect on our descendants.