Well now.....A 45 second lecture destroying the global warming argument.

[Crick]

All of your Miami links are what happens in storms. It is not the everyday ocean level. How can it be higher than Plymouth Rock? It's still there with the date on the rock. It's not under water. Does Miami have magic water? The fact is your links are all storm water and nothing more. Proven out each time you ever presented them. What would you accept as a counter link? Tell me what you'd accept.

Sea level has been rising slowly. That will first cause flooding during storm surges and particularly high tides. None of the pictures I have posted here were taken during storms. They all showed blue sunny skies. If you are looking into the issue, YOU should only accept reliable data from unbiased sources. Considering that mitigation measures will consume significant portions of community budgets, you cannot argue that governments have an illicit motive to spreading falsehoods in this regard.

What IS your position here? Do you accept that it is warming? Do you accept that warming causes sea level rise?

 

[Flash]

My counter argument is simple: When we pull an old video from ar15.com to argue against climate change, we're fucked, because you'll have more people here agreeing with you than laughing at you.

With almost a half million members AR-15.com usually has a very intellectual discussion on any topic.

The trouble is that you Libtards don't ever want to hear to hear the truth.

 

[jc456]

Sea level has been rising slowly. That will first cause flooding during storm surges and particularly high tides. None of the pictures I have posted here were taken during storms. If you are looking into the issue, Considering that mitigation measures will consume significant portions of community budgets, you cannot argue that governments have an illicit motive to spreading falsehoods in this regard.

What IS your position here? Do you accept that warming causes sea level rise?

Miami has always flooded under storm surges, that's why they call it a surge. Again, all you do is attempt to post misinformation. The fact is Plymouth rock is still above the water level. How long's that been?

They all showed blue sunny skies.

After the storms. You can't con me dude.

YOU should only accept reliable data from unbiased sources.

nothing says it's flooded, they all say projection. A word you are unfamiliar with.

Do you accept that it is warming?

Where's it warming? Name a region of he world.

 

[Crick]

Miami has always flooded under storm surges, that's why they call it a surge. Again, all you do is attempt to post misinformation. The fact is Plymouth rock is still above the water level. How long's that been?

Storm surges have caused flooding, but not all surges are large enough to crest the shoreline. As sea level rises, surges that would not have caused flooding in the past, do so. That is simply the way this all works.

And apparently you missed some posts. The Plymouth Rock we have been shown was placed in 1921 and gets submerged in some high tides. Sea level in Plymouth Harbor has risen 1.5 feet since 1620.

After the storms. You can't con me dude.

nothing says it's flooded, they all say projection. A word you are unfamiliar with.

Where's it warming? Name a region of he world.

This is trolling.

 

[jc456]

Storm surges have caused flooding, but not all surges are large enough to crest the shoreline. As sea level rises, surges that would not have caused flooding in the past, do so. That is simply the way this all works.

Yep, don't deny that fact. It isn't because of sea level rise, it's because of storm surge. Look up the phrase.

 

[Crick]

Yep, don't deny that fact. It isn't because of sea level rise, it's because of storm surge. Look up the phrase.

Then tell me what you believe would happen with storms and tides in Dade County if sea levels were actually rising at a rate of 1-2 mm per year.

 

[jc456]

Then tell me what you believe would happen with storms and tides in Dade County if sea levels were actually rising at a rate of 1-2 mm per year.

they aren't rising at that rate. Less than an inch is truly stupid to argue when you're talking about catastrophes so often. Again, Plymouth Rock is still exposed in over four centuries. You're argument is dead.

BTW, four centuries would be 15 inches of rise, and Plymouth rock is still exposed and says your statement is in error.

 

[Crick]

they aren't rising at that rate. Less than an inch is truly stupid to argue when you're talking about catastrophes so often. Again, Plymouth Rock is still exposed in over four centuries. You're argument is dead.

BTW, four centuries would be 15 inches of rise, and Plymouth rock is still exposed and says your statement is in error.

You really do seem to have a comprehension problem. AGAIN, the rock now known as Plymouth Rock was placed in its current location in 1921 and is fully submerged during King tides. Sea level rise at Plymouth Harbor since 1620 has been 1.5 feet. 1-2 mm/year is the global rate

 

[jc456]

You really do seem to have a comprehension problem. AGAIN, the rock now known as Plymouth Rock was placed in its current location in 1921 and is fully submerged during King tides. 1-2 mm/year is the global rate

it's always been submerged during King tides. Tides are truly complex events and dangerous. Existed as long man.

Sea level rise at Plymouth Harbor since 1620 has been 1.5 feet.

Well again, I did the math conversion and got 15 inches. But Ok, splitting hairs yet again.

 

[Crick]

it's always been submerged during King tides. Tides are truly complex events and dangerous. Existed as long man.

Well again, I did the math conversion and got 15 inches. But Ok, splitting hairs yet again.

Again, do you accept that globally, sea level is rising? And do you accept that global warming will cause sea level rise?

 

[Crick]

The speaker in the OP in this thread is factually incorrect. Force majeur clauses are commonplace in leases and deeds.

A force majeure clause is defined as “a contractual provision allocating the risk of loss if performance becomes impossible or impracticable, especially as a result of an event or effect that the parties could not have anticipated or controlled.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 718 (9th ed. 2009).

https://www.homerbonner.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Force-Majeure-and-Other-Issues-Related-to-the-Coronavirus-COVID-19-Pandemic-4.6.2020.pdf

 

[mamooth]

So what is your counter argument?

A summary of the idiot claim is "If global warming is real and seas are rising, then banks would have to warn people of sea level rise in contracts. Since they don't, that means global warming isn't real."

Wow, what a stupid claim.

First, the imbecile makes a lunatic claim that AGW theory says oceans will be rising 10 feet within a few decades. Since nobody has ever said that, his idiot argument collapses on that front.

And second, no, even if the prediction was correct, banks still wouldn't have to make such warnings, so his idiot claim fails there as well.

And third, yes, banks would still invest in oceanfront property, because they're about short term profits. So it fails there too.

What kind of kook bases an argument on a claim that banks must be scrupulously honest and ethical? Even for deniers, that's stupid, and that's saying something.

 

[otto105]

What about scientists who lie and get caught? Climategate

Climategate didn't disprove AGW fuckup.

Quit lying about it.

 

[jc456]

Climategate didn't disprove AGW fuckup.

Quit lying about it.

Sure it did. It showed the hide the decline ploy. And, with Mann not providing his data per court order is more evidence it is a shell game. hide the decline.

 

[jc456]

A summary of the idiot claim is "If global warming is real and seas are rising, then banks would have to warn people of sea level rise in contracts. Since they don't, that means global warming isn't real."

Wow, what a stupid claim.

First, the imbecile makes a lunatic claim that AGW theory says oceans will be rising 10 feet within a few decades. Since nobody has ever said that, his idiot argument collapses on that front.

And second, no, even if the prediction was correct, banks still wouldn't have to make such warnings, so his idiot claim fails there as well.

And third, yes, banks would still invest in oceanfront property, because they're about short term profits. So it fails there too.

What kind of kook bases an argument on a claim that banks must be scrupulously honest and ethical? Even for deniers, that's stupid, and that's saying something.

cool, so tell us where sea levels rose.

 

[Crick]

cool, so tell us where sea levels rose.

All the world's oceans. Levels have even gone up in the American Great Lakes.

 

[jc456]

All the world's oceans. Levels have even gone up in the American Great Lakes.

Why is Lake Michigan low?

 

[Crick]

Why is Lake Michigan low?

The Great Lakes are connected to the ocean and have risen right along with it. I spend half the year right next to Lake Michigan.

 

[jc456]

The Great Lakes are connected to the ocean and have risen right along with it. I spend half the year right next to Lake Michigan.

And the oceans haven't risen and at least Lake michigan is low.

 

[jc456]

The Great Lakes are connected to the ocean and have risen right along with it. I spend half the year right next to Lake Michigan.

Media

www.lre.usace.army.mil

Well if they are connected, your entire point of miami is a lie.

At least the Great Lakes water one can drink!!! 21% of the earth's freshwater.