As predicted exactly by this forum dozens and dozens of times.

A few decades! Awesome! Piss off grandkids!

Because every reputable scientist on earth thinks a 2-4 degrees would be catastrophic.

More important question - why do you have a strong opinion on something you know nothing about? Why not defer to the experts? How do you feel about the Higgs Boson?

Millions of people potentially having to relocate, cities inundated by flooding, don't worry, you'll have decades.

It's not about generations, it is about how slowly sea levels are rising. They're rising at a rate of a little over 1 inch per 10 years.

There'll be a 50 year head start to prepare for 6 inches of sea level rise.

You sound almost excited by this alarmist fever dream.

I see domer has also moved on from "earth's not warming" to "NBD".

Where have I posted that the earth is not warming?

What defines a scientist as reputable?

I don't really have a strong opinion either way. I think it's extremely dangerous to just "defer to experts", especially when these experts have been horribly wrong for decades. I'll form my own opinions based on reason and evidence and the best you've provided so far were condescending remarks and that people live close to water.

I love when conspiracy kooks and other assorted RWNJs try to turn the tables and use the same attacks that get used against them. They always get it wrong. Here, domer is trying the classic "oh look, this gun-toting racist is actually excited about the impending race-war he keeps warning us about" attack, but its a really strange context. Where a racist would be excited about the prospect of getting to shoot assorted lazy minorities, what exactly am I getting excited over in this scenario, domer?

Alarmists play up the problem with the specter of massive suffering in the future (e.g. your post), which always discounts technological advancement, poverty reduction, and the possibility that they're wrong.

Sea level rise is incredibly unlikely to have much of a negative impact, for three big reasons: (1) it is very slow, (2) poverty is being eradicated very rapidly, and (3) protecting a city is not technologically challenging nor prohibitively expensive.

POVERTY REDUCTION AHAHAHAHAHAA

Unchecked climate change will destroy biodiversity on a scale similar to the K-T extinction. Primarily because of ocean acidification, but also because omnipresent human civilization will prevent most species from effectively migrating as their desired habitats shift with the changing climate.

Imo we should all take this very seriously, even those who don't much care about the human costs.

It's hopeless. domer and co. don't even understand the basic properties of ice or just how much of it is on Earth.

Put another way, if we do move forward with the avoidable extinction of millions of species that have lived on this planet far longer than Sapiens, the utter void at the soul of our species will be truly unmasked.

what are you talking about?

People making more than 2 bucks a day helps global warming in what way?



Is this an accurate representation of what ice does?

as poverty is eradicated across the globe, humans are economically equipped to deal with problems as they may arise.

there's a commonly held perception among alarmists that poor countries are going to be ill suited to deal with climate change, yet the existence of poor countries by mid-century seems unlikely (absent major wars).

what have I said about ice that has caused you to make two posts about it? kinda weird!

I do think (not much more than a guess) that the climate has enough negative feedback that global warming will be towards the lower end of predictions, and am more than hopeful that progress will be fairly rapid in slowing carbon emissions.

But, biodiversity has already taken and will continue to take an immense and tragic hit because of climate change and many other causes. In the long run, the long long run, and the long long long run, the costs will be incalculable in a moral, scientific, and economic sense.

Published in peer-reviewed journals, respected in the field.

Nobody's been wrong for decades. No idea why you choose to assume that premise. They're looking more and more right as every year goes by.

He wants to use evidence and reason but will unthinkingly use and accept right wing anti rational memes like scientists have been wrong for decades.

Lol amazing!! That fact that you think that gif is at all comparable to the earth is really amazing.

I'll reply to the post about the scientist when I get home from work and to my laptop.

evidence is in abundance, we have this wonderful thing called the internet these days that allows you to look at that evidence for yourself.

forming opinions based upon reasoning without evidence is a dangerous game.

and really, do you want to say, "gee, is it really a problem that sea levels rise?" that's not a very well reasoned question.

yup. exactly the opposite of evidence and reasoning.

unless he is one of those, "until i prove it to myself, even though i have no expertise in the field, i don't believe it" types. in which case, no amount of evidence will change his thinking. if he was thinking like a "scientist", he would be trying to prove himself wrong.

there isn't a scientist that alive that wouldn't like to prove that humans aren't contributing to climate change. besides the nobel prize, there'd be lots of other goodies that would come along with that.

Gonna try bumping this for domer again. Every time I try to get a response, he slinks away:

You can refer back to the climate change thread for context.

Oh wow this thread got good in a hurry.

Ice floats. Ice that melts turns into water. Water doesn't float. Is this incorrect?