It's easy to respond to posts without reading them. Just click the "reply" button and let your fingers start typing whatever comes into their little minds. But it's kind of a drag to watch that sort of thing. So I don't come here that often.
I'd say your quite prone to that yourself. It's a drag to be caught doing it, which also may be a factor in you driving by infrequently.
Sarah Bellum writes:
As for "social media", if you're saying the EvC social media site is somehow more "reliable" as a source of information than FaceBook....
You're certainly welcome to show how unreliable EvC is.
I wasn't able to trace back to where the disagreement began, so I'll just respond to this:
Sarah Bellum writes:
But those predictions of fusion power bringing electricity too cheap to meter...
I think the general consensus on fusion power has been the same for a long time, often ironically expressed as, "Fusion is the power of the future and always will be." Fusion has its enthusiastic proponents, and the possibility of cheap and clean power continues to fuel the construction of experimental reactors, but the general consensus on fusion as a power source within even our longterm engineering capabilities has been strong skepticism for a long time.
If it were possible to take a one cubic millimeter sample of the sun's core, how would we contain it? That's analogous to the problem fusion scientists are trying to solve.
...don't matter as much as the predictions made in the 1980s the Maldives would be underwater within 30 years or predictions in the 1980s that New York City's West Side Highway would be submerged within 30 years or predictions at the turn of the century that within a few years children in the UK wouldn't know what snow is....
I'll just assume that some actual scientists offered these odd predictions, but they were never the consensus.
... predictions in the 1980s that New York City's West Side Highway would be submerged within 30 years ...
The source for this denier trope is an ABC show called "Earth 2100" that aired June 2, 2009. It wasn't a science paper or news report or documentary. It was a dramatization of the worst case scenarios of GW.
It's from a scene describing someone working on sea barriers in New York in 2050. That's still almost 20 years away and not outside of the range of possibilities.
That may be all well and good but it hasn’t happened so the hype was staged to further a political agenda, scare governments into curbing our only real homegrown power sources, coal, oil and gas. Cheap, reliable with an already built infrastructure and enough to keep hitting the bottom line every quarter for decades yet to come.
I know it’s hot in Phoenix today (41oC) but it is also -66oC at Amundsen-Scott Station and last time I checked both are part of this same world, this same globe, so, so much for “global” warming.
Yes. The events depicted in that made-for-TV docu-drama haven't happened yet. And neither did that show predict they would happen yet.
If anything, it has been under-hyped. And the purpose of the warnings from the world of SCIENCE was to prevent the disasters we see happening today, as well as the ones we're sure to see in the future. Their agenda was and is preventing economic and human hardships.
It's denial is a political agenda. It's acceptance is about rational thinking and compassion for future generations.
Coal, gas, and oil are not cheap, when you consider the price we're paying and will be paying for the consequences of ignoring their trash for so long, even if you don't take dead people in your accounting.
The temps today here, there, or anywhere are completely irrelevant. We're talking about decades-long trends in climate, not daily weather reports. How do you expect to argue about climate change without event knowing what climate is?
With all the endless volume on both FaceBook and EvC I'm sure some, perhaps even a lot of useful information comes through both of these. There's hardly any point in making an artificial distinction, FaceBook bad, EvC good, four legs good, two legs . . .
But all this useful information just gets drowned out by the rest of the noise (that post of yours I'm responding to here is a perfect example!). I suppose in the long run more is better than less. If you have a limited number of "official" outlets that are "fact-checked" (by whom, exactly?) you're bound to get more of a Soviet than a Western outlook on life. So, I guess, Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom . . .
The prediction involved sea level rise that did not, in fact, happen. The prediction was not about storm surge. Storm surge has hit many times before Sandy (before New York was New York, even!) The Great Storm of 1693, for example, or the 1788 storm that left the Battery in ruins, or the Norfolk and Long Island Hurricane that flooded NY City up to Canal street in 1821, or the 1893 hurricane that washed away Hog Island, or the Long Island Express that hit in 1938.
It's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.