Discussion > A Debating Motion- Sea level rise is a threat.
Radical Rodent
I bet his former pupils got into serious trouble if they got his name wrong, so count yourself lucky you were only subjected to a little sarcasm and not detention or the tawse.
SandyS
I note with sadness that it is now over 24 hours since Entropic Man promised to compose a reply to my opening remarks in the debate, and yet we have still to see it. Nor, despite requests, do we have an estimate of when it may be available.
I also note that the debate was at his instigation.
He had made some unfounded disobliging remarks about my scientific abilities then challenged me as follows:
'Let's make a proper debate of it. I'll start a discussion thread. We both post an opening statement laying out our positions on potential sea level rise. Then the discussion can begin. Agreed?'
and
'This should be a good test of both our abilities to debate science. Let's both demonstrate how it should be done.'
with which I concurred.
I note finally that I am here, keyboard at the ready, opening statement posted yesterday, bright-eyed, bushy-tailed and eager to debate the substantive issue of sea level rise.
But a debate needs more than a single participant.
I do hope that we have not already completed Entropic's 'test of both our abilities to debate science' with one side having gone AWOL, and so an unwanted TKO awarded to the forces of reason.
Latimer Alder
The answer is to adapt to the environment, trying to modify it is nonsense.Not so sure about that statement; mankind has been modifying the environment almost from the start – what is fire but a modification of the environment? The Somerset levels once were marshlands, but modifying the environment through generations of drainage, have become the productive farmlands they now are – and the Dutch have taken that idea to ridiculous extremes!
Many species try to modify their environment for their own advantage. Trees grow tall and cast deep shade to discourage opposition – some even actively poison the ground around them; beavers build dams, crocodiles pile rotting vegetation in which they lay their eggs to incubate in the heat (as does at least one species of bird); other birds build nests, as do ants, bees and wasps – even fish modify their environments!
Yes, LA, that is something I have noted, too – as, no doubt, will have many others – but felt it impolite to mention it.
Radical Rodent
Latimer Alder
In the middle of this bullshit storm?
Entropic man
Yes. It probably is a bit daunting, to view this much opposition. Why not just present your arguments as best you can, and see how it develops?
Radical Rodent
Is sea level rise a threat to civilization?
The paper that Richard Betts points to undermines that assumption. Even with the worst case scenarios of warming and consequent sea level rise, policies are possible that cost only a tiny fraction of GDP.
Even if totally ignored (like people continuing to live in houses that are regularly submerged at high tide) the physical aspects are not a threat to civilisation. But even if sea level rise increases ten-fold to 3cm a year, societies with accurate forecasts will adjust and adapt through the market mechanism to minimise the net adverse impacts.
The threats are more policy-related. If governments are expected to protect against any threat, then they will fail. There are two aspects to this. In New Orleans people lived below sea level in the hope that the levees would keep them safe. It was a catastrophic failure in these safety barriers, brought on by Hurricane Katrina that caused most of the fatalities. The second is that other priorities can increase vulnerability. For instance the Somerset levels floods were exacerbated by an experiment in controlled flooding. In both cases, post-disaster, the measures taken to prevent similar occurrences are far in excess of what is rationally justified. Politically the incurred policy ex-post is far in excess to any possible dangers. But prior to the disasters, despite large amounts of money having been expended over decades, the safety measures did not prevent the disasters.
On a global level this could be even greater, particularly if flood-prevention schemes financed externally failed.
Suppose low-lying third world areas like the Nile and Ganges Deltas were to get inundated despite (or partly because of) schemes to prevent this happening. Rich countries will shoulder the blame for their past emissions and squander huge amounts of money on preventing it occurring again. Various revolutionary groups could emerge in the disaster countries with anger directed as rich countries who “caused” the disaster, destabilising those countries and other countries. The US and the EU would be more earnest in their mitigation policies, increasing fuel poverty and disaffection with the democratic process. Recession could lead to stronger and more incompetent Governments, pouring money into ever-larger wars on terror along with trying to buy-off the alleged wrongs.
The threat to civilization comes through the delusions of the human race being responsible for climate, and being able to fix every problem.
Kevin Marshall
Earlier this year I posted about how an expert with extreme views on sea level rise - who did not moderate those views in the light of more moderate evidence - may have helped influence unnecessary and expensive policies in low-lying Miami Dade. Prof Wanless had an estimate of sea level rise by 2100 of 1.25 to 2.0m, despite the IPCC AR5 WG1 having low confidence in projections above 0.82m. At the very least, many people may have difficulty getting planning permission for property at sea level, or be unable to get flood insurance due to false alarm from an expert.
Kevin Marshall
Persuading people that a distant problem needs attention now is never easy. Humanity has a "sufficient to the day is the evil thereof" approach which makes it very difficult to recognise and deal with long term problems.
The Greens repeat this, but its bollocks. Utter bollocks.
On a personal level people buy insurance, put into pension plans, get educated at short term expense to have long term earnings, don't take drugs despite the short term pleasure of doing so, use birth control, etc. In fact those people who cannot do such things are despised and ridiculed as being infantile.
Modern democratic governments are very good at working on long term solutions. For example we recognise that there is a problem in the West with our populations aging, and slowly we are raising retirement ages, reducing the inflationary aspects of pension plans etc. Progress is slow, and delays are inevitable, but more because there are differences over the solutions, rather than a blindness to the problem.
(Personal autocratic regimes aren't so good at long term planning, because the rulers tend to think only about keeping in power during their lifetimes. Despite the assertion of many that the "environment" would be improved by reducing democracy, the reverse it true. Non-personal autocratic regimes -- communism, theocracies etc -- are notorious for their belief in short term pain for long term gain.)
Nor is it obvious that looking excessively long term is particularly useful for a country. The Soviets were planning long term even as the country collapsed about them, due to their inability to deal properly with the here and now. There's a looming crisis in electricity generation in the UK, being caused by those people who are most strident about the need to prepare for the future. They are so focused on their long term goal of reducing CO2 that they are going to cause a short term crisis.
The reason people don't want to start to deal with the long term issue of sea rise is not that they are short-sighted. It's because they don't recognise it as a problem at all. And certainly not an urgent one.
It's part of the Green mentality to hate people that they somehow think all us sceptics do actually recognise the problem but are pretending otherwise, or somehow suppressing it. They really can't get a grip on the fact that people don't think they are right all the time.
Sorry, rant over. I just really hate being told that I'm mentally inadequate because I don't believe someone else's fears for the future.
Mooloo
@entropic
'In the middle of this bullshit storm?'
Let's remind ourselves of where we are and why.
You made the challenge for a public debate. You specified the venue. You specified the format. You have made your opening statement and told us what you hope to demonstrate. I too have made my opening remarks setting out a practical and considered case.
The ball is now back in your court. I await your promised reply.
I will check in again here at 19:15 tonight, which will be exactly 48 hours since you promised to provide it.
Latimer Alder
Entropic man
'In the middle of this bullshit storm?'
Exactly how your comments are normally viewed when 'you' take over a post with your own agenda..... enjoy!
Lord Beaverbrook
Entropic man
Did you expect every one to sit quietly in the classroom in awe of your knowledge whilst you wrote your pet theory on the blackboard whilst the class swot (sorry Latimer Alder) is sent packing with his tail between by the force of your intellect and great arguments?
Well welcome to the world the rest of us have inhabited since we left the sheltered environment of education.
sandyS
"In the middle of this bullshit storm?"
EM - instead of getting on with the debate which you instigated, you have:
1. Goaded your opponent by getting his name wrong and then making a joke about it at his expense - a classic bit of gamesmanship, obviously aimed at unsettling your opponent, rather than debating fairly and squarely.
2. Lectured him, as if he were a thirteen year old, on the protocols of debating, another bit of gamesmanship.
3 Taken time to taunt the audience with derogatory comments and links to irrelevant items, to which they have naturally responded (the threat of detention or having to write 200 lines not applying in this classroom).
Meanwhile everybody has been on tenterhooks wondering how you were going to make your case. It now looks as if we may never know. A seasoned debater such as you clearly would not be put off by a little heckling from the cheap seats, so we are left surmising the real reason for your backing out as soon as you have read your opponent's opening words.
Martin A
Latmer Alder
Sorry, Mr Alder. I quit.
Nowadays my wisest response to stress is to disengage.
Entropic man
1. Goaded your opponent by getting his name wrong and then making a joke about it at his expense - a classic bit of gamesmanship, obviously aimed at unsettling your opponent, rather than debating fairly and squarely.2. Lectured him, as if he were a thirteen year old, on the protocols of debating, another bit of gamesmanship.
3 Taken time to taunt the audience with derogatory comments and links to irrelevant items, to which they have naturally responded (the threat of detention or having to write 200 lines not applying in this classroom).
Imagine, that EM had a blog of his own and the above took place there - you have ATTP. By now, EM would have banned Latimer for not answering his questions and causing a bullshit storm.
shub
Sorry, Entropic Mann, but that is a cop-out. YOU set the challenge, YOU set the venue, YOU started the argument. Come back with counter arguments with all those presented (even if only those by Latimer Alder), but be prepared to have them ripped to shreds (as usual).
Do what I suggested above (Dec 15, 2014 at 11:02 PM); while I do not expect you to engage with me, try, at least, to engage with Latimer Alder.
(p.s. Mooloo: while your post appears to contain many internal contradictions, I think I understand what you are trying to say.)
Radical Rodent
So we see that the proposition that slr poses a threat to civilization fails for lack of facts, lack of evidence and lack of ability of the pro side to offer any convincing argument.
So the conclusion is that slr caused by CO2 is *not* a threat to civilization.
hunter
EM,
Sorry, Mr Alder. I quit.Nowadays my wisest response to stress is to disengage.
I don't blame you, but kudos for trying. I guess everyone else feels as though they've somehow won. If so, they're horribly mistaken unless they regard remaining ill-informed as winning.
...and Then There's Physics
So the conclusion is that slr caused by CO2 is *not* a threat to civilization.Big leap in your assumptions there, Hunter; where did you get the “…caused by CO2…” part of the argument? Miss that bit out, and the conclusion is valid.
Sorry, aTTP, but if you think that everyone on this site has a desire to “win”, then you are somewhat mistaken (indeed, it is only Entropic Mann who has ever expressed that as his goal. Odd, that), though it does throw an interesting insight into your mentality.
Furthermore, could you provide any argument to support Entropic Mann’s case? Probably not – but you just cannot resist the opportunity to come on here to make a snarky dig at most of us on this site. What a rational, positive outlook you have on life.
Radical Rodent
"Ill-informed" how, exactly? ATTP.
I, for one, am perfectly aware of the fact that the IPPC project a rise in sea level of 18-59cm by the end of the 21st. century, and don't personally consider that to be a threat to civilisation - it would be a minor inconvenience at most.
Of course, that s not enough for the hyper-alarmists typified by EM and Richard Betts, so they promptly, and with no actual evidence other than their own personal world view, throw the IPCC under the bus (kind of ironic coming from an IPCC lead author) and insist on introducing their own doomsday scenarios.
And then they wonder why people of a skeptical nature are not prepared to accept this as a basis for a mature and rational discussion.
What the [self snip] did they expect?
Anything is possible
Radical,
then you are somewhat mistaken (indeed, it is only Entropic Mann who has ever expressed that as his goal. Odd, that), though it does throw an interesting insight into your mentality.
Ahh, if I was mistaken, then I apologise. Of course, you could have simply pointed that out, instead of inferring something about my mentality. So, maybe winning isn't your goal, but trying to at least appear moderately pleasant clearly isn't one either.
Furthermore, could you provide any argument to support Entropic Mann’s case?
No, I have no interest at all in convincing anyone that climate change, or sea level rise, presents a threat.
but you just cannot resist the opportunity to come on here to make a snarky dig at most of us on this site.
I can certainly resist doing that, but can't deny that some of my comments can have an element of snark. On the other hand, few of the comments aimed at me (you being a particular example) have been particularly pleasant. For a group of people who seem to excel at insulting others, some do seem remarkably sensitive when anyone says anything remotely snarky in response. I tend to assume that those who dish it out, can also take it. I shall, however, bear in mind that people here are more sensitive than one might assume based on what they're willing to say themselves.
...and Then There's Physics
ATTP,
You, more than any of the climate obsessed who post here, would not give up if you actually had a point to rebut the fact-based arguments against EM's proposition.
But you don't, do you? You have snark and pose. Like most of the climate obsessed, when confronted with fact-based counter data, and pointed questions, you simply condemn those who disagree and slink off.
From EM's silly framing of the debate: No linking of slr and CO2, no context to discuss slr historically, to your side's utter inability to deal with disagreement, this little debate is a representative view into the miasma of the climate obsessed.
Thanks for playing.
hunter
Anything,
Well, firstly my response was mainly to simply indicate that I understood where EM was coming from. Engaging in discussions here is rarely pleasant and regularly unpleasant. Walking away is often best strategy.
However, I do think your numbers are a little wrong. Sea level rise will depend on our future emissions. Under the most extreme scenario, the IPCC suggests between 0.6 and 0.98m by 2100. Additionally, you could read this Aslak Grinsted post which suggests that the IPCC have underestimated the uncertainty. In other words, it could be more than 1m by 2100. It might not be, but we can't discount that it could be. Whether or not you find that something to be concerned about - or some kind of threat - is, however, entirely up to you.
...and Then There's Physics
aTTP: you do not engage in reasonable, rational debate; you just want to argue, to shout down every point anyone else makes, and drive your own point in, because you, and ONLY you, are right. Your self-appointed moniker holds the value of science, yet your bilious retorts do not; your chosen name is a good example of vanity. The reason I and others do not like you is that you are unlikable. I have had disagreements with others on this site – usually, I concede my error, rarely, they concede theirs – but few of them resorted to the levels you feel you have to; quite why you feel you have to grind the faces of we “losers” of your argument into the ground does baffle me.
Radical Rodent
Radical,
It's hard not to conclude that you're simply trying to prove my point. I would be more than happy to change my tone, but am certainly not going to do so if my comments are described as bilious retorts. You do understand the meaning of the word ironic, I assume.
quite why you feel you have to grind the faces of we “losers” of your argument into the ground does baffle me.
Maybe it baffles you because I'm not trying to do what you think I am?
Anyway, given your tone, I shall follow EM's example and retreat, more for my benefit than for anyone else's.
...and Then There's Physics
Yes, sea level rise is a threat. That doesn't mean it's man-made or preventable.
Along with coastal erosion, plate tectonics, ice-ages, extinctions, floods, droughts, famine, pestilence and death - it has been going on forever and will continue.
When alarmists point to nature and claim the 'bad' things they see are man-made, sensible people shouldn't be distracted. Yes the flood or drought was a tragedy, but not unnatural or preventable. The answer is to adapt to the environment, trying to modify it is nonsense.