42 yrs later and FL coastal construction hasn't slowed down. Construction in this state is booming, and has been since the 60's, with no slowdown in sight.
The trick is to use computer-based climate models. Not even the climate scientists know exactly how they work.
One question to ask is: How many computer models are there? If the answer is more than one then ask: Why? if the model is telling us the truth then why do we need more than one? If the two models are giving different results then how do we know is either of them is right?
The usual ploy is to create a set of models that, between them, give every answer you could think of. They use the most extreme one to create the fear. They claim it must be right because scientists and computers.
When it is obvious that the answer is wrong then they revert to quoting the output of the most right model and tell us that scientists and computers were right all along.
Im a weather watcher because my company relies on the weather. I do concrete in spring through fall and snow removal in the winter. There are two weather models that are used for US forecasts. One comes from NOAA and is usually called the North American model. The other comes from Europe and is called the European model. The two rarely agree even on short range (10 day) forecasts. The further out in time and the more they diverge.
So I have little faith (as in zero) that by modeling they can predict future climate. Garbage in, garbage out. Our understanding of past climate is imperfect at best. It is the pinnacle of arrogance to believe that an incomplete data set can be accurately modeled to predict future climate.
But this isnt even the real problem. The real problem is that government seeks certain outcomes and through grant money (basically scientific bribery) they get exactly what they want whether the data is correct or not.
(BTW the European model is usually better for winter forecasts while the NOAAs just sucks.)
Even if they use the most extreme model, the only way sea levels rise is with the tide, and that is effect is thanks to the moon, and it happens on a daily basis.
1982 is the year that the switch from coming ice age to global warming happened. You can almost pinpoint the date of the narrative change through the newspaper articles of the time.
42 yrs later and FL coastal construction hasn't slowed down. Construction in this state is booming, and has been since the 60's, with no slowdown in sight.
Well, that's inconvenient.
Ain't it the truth...
And the same beaches are still there in the same places.
source
10 years prior they claimed it would be an iceberg if the world didn't stop using Aqua Net hair spray and spray paint.
The trick is to use computer-based climate models. Not even the climate scientists know exactly how they work.
One question to ask is: How many computer models are there? If the answer is more than one then ask: Why? if the model is telling us the truth then why do we need more than one? If the two models are giving different results then how do we know is either of them is right?
The usual ploy is to create a set of models that, between them, give every answer you could think of. They use the most extreme one to create the fear. They claim it must be right because scientists and computers.
When it is obvious that the answer is wrong then they revert to quoting the output of the most right model and tell us that scientists and computers were right all along.
Works every time!
Im a weather watcher because my company relies on the weather. I do concrete in spring through fall and snow removal in the winter. There are two weather models that are used for US forecasts. One comes from NOAA and is usually called the North American model. The other comes from Europe and is called the European model. The two rarely agree even on short range (10 day) forecasts. The further out in time and the more they diverge.
So I have little faith (as in zero) that by modeling they can predict future climate. Garbage in, garbage out. Our understanding of past climate is imperfect at best. It is the pinnacle of arrogance to believe that an incomplete data set can be accurately modeled to predict future climate.
But this isnt even the real problem. The real problem is that government seeks certain outcomes and through grant money (basically scientific bribery) they get exactly what they want whether the data is correct or not.
(BTW the European model is usually better for winter forecasts while the NOAAs just sucks.)
Even if they use the most extreme model, the only way sea levels rise is with the tide, and that is effect is thanks to the moon, and it happens on a daily basis.
Not even the climate $cientist$ know exactly how they work.
The Polar Bear Shot was fake.
1982 is the year that the switch from coming ice age to global warming happened. You can almost pinpoint the date of the narrative change through the newspaper articles of the time.
Those darn sun spot cycles.