720

I have. And I also know that Akasofu is a very well educated and experienced scientist who has had numerous other highly educated and experienced scientists including climate scientists, working under his direction. Just because he has not conducted the studies himself, does not make him any less knowledgeable on the subject. And of course his organization pays a lot of attention to climate change. That is a significant function of what they do. You should not be surprised.

721

The only thing you’ve quoted or me is me saying “had to be built 5 feet higher”… you snipped that portion of my post and then went on to say that was me claiming the 2 inch rise destroyed the pier. I NEVER SAID THAT. You took the liberty of adding that onto my quote. So you most certainly have completely misrepresented my position. It couldn’t be anymore of an intentional misrepresentation.

Furthermore, you said this: “It was you who made the association between the 5 cm of sea level rise and the destruction of the pier. You … nobody else.”

None of that is a quote of me. I just explained to you how the 5 cm rise came into the course of discussion, but no one, not myself, not anyone, has said in this post that a 5cm rise in sea level is what caused the destruction of the pier.

It’s flat-out amazing the lengths you will go to avoid admitting you’re wrong, made a mistake, however you want to frame it. I’ve never said nor implied the rise in water destroyed the pier.

Ya know, last night, in a hurry I was responding to WR and thought he was making a claim that he wasn’t. I had misread his post, and after going back, re-reading it and having that realization, I apologized for the error. Why? Because I’m a decent human being with the goal of having an honest discussion here.

Don’t bother responding to me anymore Samm. You’ve proven time and time again that you simply cannot be an honest broker… was hopeful maybe that had changed, but apparently not.

Cheers.

722

And are you familiar with the research results of scientists in his former organization? Maybe you should pay them a visit.

723

And there you come through with the derogatory labels. He is a skeptic not a denier. All good scientists are skeptics.

And when it comes to criticizing the accuracy of predictions made 20 years or more ago, he does not stand out alone by any means. Just compare computer model temperature predictions made by numerous science groups to the actual measured temperatures. Only one model of the dozens who publish has been even remotely close. The same goes for predictions of loss of sea ice and sea level rise. But they all covered their asses with “if.” “might” and “could” the language of science as Borgia calls it …

724

What are you talking about? Who is impeding the use of LED light bulbs?

725

I’m also a skeptic.

726
727

I will respond to anyone I choose, particularly those who falsely accuse me of dishonesty. I have been dishonest about nothing. Everything I have asserted is evidenced in the posts above. You may be a decent human being, but you certainly have not shown that your goal here is an honest discussion. If you were, you would not now be relying on excuses for earlier posts that I responded to to accuse me of dishonesty. That is counter productive to fostering an honest discussion.

728

Is there any indication that manufacturers and going to stop producing LEDS in response?

729

I’ve gone ahead and compiled all the relevant quotes in this thread between you and I on this topic. Presented below in chronological order. My extra commentary in bold.

You: “Are you suggesting that sea level rose 5 feet since the original pier was constructed?”

Me: “No. I’ve quite clearly stated numerous times now that in that 40 yr time period Conan is referencing, sea levels have risen approx. 5cm.”

You: "Hmmm … 5cm is less than two inches.

Then why did you say that it “had to be” built five feet higher? Particularly when the end attached to the shore is at its original elevation."

You: “What makes you think that two inches of sea level rise (your number, not mine) would be sufficient to destroy the pier? Most engineering failures such as this are due to a lack of sufficient data at the time of development. The design would have been based on the record of previous storms and then a comfortable safety factor (25-40%) added. Undoubtedly, they had never experienced a storm any where near strong enough to produce a storm surge and waves of the magnitude that this storm produced, prior to the design and construction of the pier”

Your first sentence here is where you first put those words in my mouth. I never said that (as you can see)

Me: "I can do unit conversions too. They built it five feet higher because according to the article I read, another regional pier stood withstood damage from the storm… and it was five feet higher.

I didn’t say it had to… I just said it was. If you were paying attention, Conan was the first to say it was five feet higher.

Really struggling to understand why you’re latching onto that? weird…"

Me: "I never said the sea level rise is what destroyed the pier. I said the increased storm surges… furthermore, I was pretty clear when I said that’s why I foudn this whole thing funny. He held up an image of a pier to try and disprove AGW. LucyLou then found out the pier had been destroyed in 2004 by a hurricane… Why didn’t it withstand the storm? Because, as you indicate above, it was engineered to withstand the record of previous storms. But it didn’t withstand this one… one of much greater magnitude.

Now, to bring this full circle, surely you’re aware that one of the predictions of AGW is that it may result in stronger hurricanes?"

Here I state in no uncertain terms, I never said rising waters destroyed the pier.

You: "You most certainly did say that.

I am not “latching onto” anything, I am simply saying that the two inches of sea level rise since it was built was not the reason the pier was destroyed. It was destroyed because a storm that produced tide and waves of significantly greater magnitude than had been designed for hit the area. That they subsequently raised the outer portion of it five feet (as opposed to two inches … or 20, or 30) when they rebuilt it has nothing to do with it.
"

Here you make the statement again, even though I’ve clearly never said that. The only time I mentioned it was just prior, and only to tell you I never said it…

Me: "Dude, I was simply regurgitating what the articles were saying… that it was rebuilt 5 feet higher. Another local pier withstood the same storm, so they lobbied FEMA for an extra million to raise to the same height.

Furthermore, I never said 2 inches of sea level rise destroyed the pier. Per usual Samm, show where Im making that argument. Im not… I’ve stated increased storm surges."

Clearly state my position once again

You: “Why are you trying to pin me down to something that I did not say?”

Me: "What are you referring to? The 2 inch rise? (refrains from childish joke)…

If so, you said this: “I am not “latching onto” anything, I am simply saying that the two inches of sea level rise since it was built was not the reason the pier was destroyed.”

All I was saying was, neither had I… your sentence implies I had, when I had not."

My position reaffirmed

You: “It was you who made the association between the 5 cm of sea level rise and the destruction of the pier. You … nobody else.”

Im putting the entire record of this conversation on here… where did I make that association? At this point I’ve stated clearly at least a few times I’v enever stated this, nor believe it.

Me: "No, I never did. The introduction of the 5 cm to this discussion occurred in my response to Conan in #266. He had said the water under the pier is at the same level now as it was 40 years ago… I replied that it was actually 5 cm higher. I’ve never once said the pier was destroyed because the ocean is 2 inches higher.

So no, not me… not anyone as far as Im aware. I don’t even know where you get this ■■■■■"

Confirmed my position… yet again.

You: "It’s simple. Because you said “it had to be rebuilt 5 feet higher.” The only explanation that you offered to support that statement was that sea level rose 5 cm since the pier was built.

Let’s just drop this. We both now know that there was more to it than your first few posts suggested."

Wrong. I clearly stated that I was simply relating what I read in the article. I never once linked it to the 5 cm sea level rise. But I realize why you’d like to drop it…

I’ve left the latter ones off of here because they’re not really all that relevant.

Clearly shows your putting words in my mouth I’ve never said.

730

Now you want to be careful with words… the sheer ■■■■■■■ irony of this. :roll_eyes:

Like I said earlier, you’re gonna be wrong… and like clockwork, here we go. Only one model, eh? Not even close. Here’s a link that covers several models from several organizations, using a variety of methods performed over a span of several decades. Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming? - Carbon Brief Mind you, these are only predictions of temperature anomalies, don’t even include models predicting sea level rise, sea ice volume & extent, ocean warming, etc.

Cover their asses? Jesus, they are making predictions. You can’t make predictions with certainty, you can only do so with levels of confidence… which are detailed, BTW.

731

Falsely? No, you’re flat out being dishonest. I just compiled the entire content of our posts related to the topic. Feel free to show me where it was ever said. Feel free to correct the record. Feel free to do whatever…

But you better do something, because now everyone doesnt have to wade through the entire thread… they can just see it all in one post. Not a good look for you…

732

How conveinient.

733

Can you dispute that? No.

734

Is there any indication that people will drive at 55 MPH if we remove highway speed limits? That car manufacturer’s will voluntarily raise their fuel economy standards purely in response to the “invisible hand”? Would Lake Erie still be flammable if the EPA hadn’t come along?

Why do conservatives get their bowels in such an uproar when society imposes behavioral requirements to try to make the world cleaner, or safer, at the cost of some profits? They don’t have a problem when it’s an agenda they agree with.

735

That’s ridiculous…pictures show nothing…what if they were all taken at low tide…never thought of that huh?

736

@WildRose…no that’s not how it works. No one here is a bully. The president is a bully, but nobody here is.

737

I don’t know where it with pride is…did you mean wear it?

1 Like
738

You have been provided with a link to the the most recent IPCC report.

739

The only thing that is clear is that you are taking this conversation way too personally. Chill out dude.