Pavlov, Lemmings, BS, & Strawberries

I understand, but a global problem requires global thinking. The loss of the arctic ice sheets WILL cause sea-level to rise. It already is rising and Louisiana has thousands of square miles of coastal land less than a meter above sea level. That will hit Louisiana (us) hard in the pocketbook, mon ami.



Values for predicted sea level rise over the course of the next century typically range from 0.9 to 8.8 meters, with a central value of 4.80 meters.

Breaux Bridge is 7.1 meters above sea level. In 50 years, your sons will see the Atchafalaya Basin become an estuary with the open ocean less than 40 miles away. The redfish will be closer, but when the hurricanes come it will be like living in Golden Meadow.

Even New York City will suffer inundation with a 4.8 meter rise. LINK

 

For once I agree with you!

 

You don't know what subjective means either, do you? :hihi:

Once again, you can't stay on topic and keep changing the subject to Red55. Why are you so jealous?

I remind you that YOU are the one who has failed to provide specifics upon repeated requests. I asked you a dozen questions about the specifics of the carbon swap plan because I haven't studied them and because I'm not obsessed with Al Gore, unlike yourself. But your continued silence proves that you don't know them either. Just like everyone else you debate what you want to and ignore what you want to. Well, so do I, chum! Everybody else does, too.

You just have to let go of the preposterous notion that someone else is compelled to argue the opposite of your thesis. It is too laughable for words. :lol:

Provably false. I've argued 100 topics with you alone and I can cite them. But I get to choose what I care to argue about. As do you, so live with it. I'm not going to get caught up in your silly chit.

If you want a detailed debate, ask a detailed question and be prepared to stand behind it with some facts. But the schoolyard tactic of crying "no fair" just don't play here, stumpy.

 

You may not be logical or analytical, but you always were perceptive.

Clever. You didn't like the question, so you answered some other question. No, twice a I pressed you for details so that I could consider the issue without guessing. Al Gore offered no details talking to Larry King. Two of the great scientists of our time . . . :rolleye33:

Ah, so the concept is not mature or developed and any numbers that might support or undermine it are not yet available. You oppose it in theory. But then you castigate me for not engaging the issue IN SPECIFIC. :grin:

I'm tying you in logical knots with the rope you are giving me. Why don't you quit while I'm ahead.

I'd rather just point out that your theoretical objection to the abstract concept has no evidentiary basis and isn't even a real proposal yet.

Therefore it deserves no response and I can answer with a heartfelt, "Well, good for you."

When you can manage to craft a substantiated objection to an established proposal with corroborating evidence and suporting examples . . . then I may agree with you or disagree with you based on your thesis. That's pragmatic and prudent.