1. I believe lying is both counterproductive and morally wrong. 2. I believe lying is both counterproductive and morally wrong. 3. I believe lying is both counterproductive and morally wrong. 4. I believe lying is both counterproductive and morally wrong. 5. I believe lying is both counterproductive and morally wrong.
Why do people accept some things and not others? It's a complex question. But global warming predictions that turned out to be inaccurate are problematic in any case.
"Florida Real Estate" was a byword for scam half a century ago (you know, back when the predictions were of a new ice age Another Ice Age? - TIME rather than global warming) so I'm not sure how "If you want to know if climate change is real, ask real estate brokers in Miami . . . " is likely to persuade anyone.
But global warming predictions that turned out to be inaccurate are problematic in any case.
In what way problematic? How can they remain problematic once we know they are inaccurate? Can you explain?
What about climate predictions that turned out to be accurate? Are they problematic also?
Can you point out global warming predictions that turned out to be inaccurate that were unmodified after their inaccuracy was known?
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
1.) Do you think scientists should report the results of their research?
2.) Do you think they should form conclusions and make predictions based on the results of their research?
3.) Do you think they should defend their original predictions even when further research refines their results or shows their original predictions are no longer valid?
4.) Do you think scientists should stop doing research into controversial subjects or that they should withhold their results and conclusions?
5.) Do you think that scientists should sound the alarm when they can see an obvious global disaster looming where some of the worst effects of that disaster might be modified by some changes in behavior by the human population on this planet?
Do you have any answers or alternatives?
Sarah Bellum writes:
1. I believe lying is both counterproductive and morally wrong. 2. I believe lying is both counterproductive and morally wrong. 3. I believe lying is both counterproductive and morally wrong. 4. I believe lying is both counterproductive and morally wrong. 5. I believe lying is both counterproductive and morally wrong.
Well that's disappointing. I was hoping for a bit more substance. Your behavior seems pretty trollish.
Edited by Tanypteryx, : Added my questions for context.
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
But global warming predictions that turned out to be inaccurate are problematic in any case.
You are not talking about the accuracy of the science of global warming. You are talking about the perception of some emotionally charged claims in a politically charged atmosphere. You’ve been through some of them. Your objections are all bunk.
None of your problems with climate change predictions can be considered serious since the actual scientific predictions are still 100-200 years out, and longer.
You argue short term visuals rather than long term actuals. Though even today you have to be blind to not see the start of some very unwelcome changes.
Not that it matters much any more. The science is increasingly showing that our meager mitigation efforts are woefully ineffective. Doesn’t matter how each battle goes. We are losing this war.
My problem is that you keep driving by every month or so and posting inane comments to me.
She's acting like a drive-by troll. Her posts have little content. I think she's embarrassed that she was completely wrong about the Y2K issue and whether scientists should make predictions based on their data. That's why we hire scientists to conduct research rather than uneducated idiots. We've already tried stupidity.
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
Florida Sees Signals of a Climate-Driven Housing Crisis
Home sales in areas most vulnerable to sea-level rise began falling around 2013, researchers found. Now, prices are following a similar downward path.
If rising seas cause America’s coastal housing market to dive — or, as many economists warn, when — the beginning might look a little like what’s happening in the tiny town of Bal Harbour, a glittering community on the northernmost tip of Miami Beach.
With single-family homes selling for an average of $3.6 million, Bal Harbour epitomizes high-end Florida waterfront property. But around 2013, something started to change: The annual number of homes sales began to drop — tumbling by half by 2018 — a sign that fewer people wanted to buy.
Prices eventually followed, falling 7.6 percent from 2016 to 2020, according to data from Zillow, the real estate data company.
All across Florida’s low-lying areas, it’s a similar story, according to research published Monday. The authors argue that not only is climate change eroding one of the most vibrant real estate markets in the country, it has quietly been doing so for nearly a decade.
“The downturn started in 2013, and no one noticed,” said Benjamin Keys, the paper’s lead author and a professor of real estate and finance at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. “It means that coastal housing is in more distress than we thought.”
The researchers identified a decline in sales in low-lying coastal areas beginning in 2013, followed a few years later by a drop in prices compared with safer areas. On less vulnerable land, sales and prices continued to grow.
<article continues>
If you do a Google search for "real estate prices florida climate change" you can dozens and dozens of such articles.
I used to rent a place south of Melbourne Beach, FL that was across the street (A1A) from the ocean and was only 8 feet above sea level in 1990-96. After several tropical events I moved away a bit from the coast. I would never buy right on the ocean in Florida unless I could afford to rebuild on my own.
In late 2018, PBS ran a four-part series, Sinking Cities, in which each episode covered a different major city; eg, London, Tokyo, New York, Miami. Here is the trailer for the Miami episode (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GM2-HsNjrA):
From what I remember of that episode, newer buildings (eg, an art gallery) were being built with empty ground floors, sidewalks and streets were being built up higher such that some street-front properties are noticeably lower than street level. They also noted movement of the wealthy to inland (and hence higher elevation) neighborhoods which are currently low-income areas but which are now targeted for massive gentrification.
What I especially remember was their examination of several possible solutions. With the Netherlands' land reclamation traditions in mind, what about a sea wall (eg, the depiction of the future New York City in The Expanse)? The problem is that Miami (and most of Florida, for that matter) has as its bedrock fossiliferous limestone that water just flows through as if it's not even there. Any benefit from a sea wall would disappear as the sea water just streams through under it.
I don't think you know what a rant is. Look it up.
You trolls are really irritating with your content-less posts.
Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
Independent of the rant characterization, I think Sarah Bellum's actual argument was that she never said scientists shouldn't extrapolate from their data, but that you claimed she'd implied that and then ridiculed her.
But if you go back to her Message 167 what she did imply is not that different, namely that past investigatory efforts that reached conclusions later proved wrong invalidate future efforts. I'm sure she understands how science actually works, but she's apparently willing to ignore what she knows to be true about science when it serves her purposes.
I'm sure she knows these things: a) The further back you trace in time the less of a consensus there was - if she goes back 30 or 40 years she can pick among plenty of forecasts that turned out to be wrong; b) Science is a process that leads toward more and more accurate understandings of the world around us, not a mathematical proof; c) If we should ignore every person or group that was ever wrong, then she should be ignored more than most here.
It's also important to understand why science was wrong when it was wrong. For decades many scientists downplayed the dangers of smoking? Why? Because scientists are human, and the tobacco industry paid them money to arrive at certain conclusions. Because their livelihood was dependent upon it they found ways to arrive at those conclusions.
Why did it take so long for a consensus on climate change to emerge? Certainly the fossil fuel industry's funding of science played a role.
Presumably everyone's heard of Lysenko, but for those who haven't, he was a Soviet scientist who supported Lamarckism (as opposed to Mendelian genetics), and because Lamarckism was seen by the communist party as consistent with communism the Soviet government put him in charge of their genetics programs, in effect elevating Lamarckism to government mandated dogma and setting Soviet genetics research back decades.
Science is carried out by imperfect humans whose mere intellectual lapses can cause enough damage, but scientists are also heir to all other human foibles, and those play a role in science as well. That's why a consensus is so important - the foibles average out.
Some may remember past discussions here about Halton Arp, who at the time was still engaged in research attempting to disprove the Hubble universe. Who knows his motivation, but he used his immense intellect to find ways to ignore data that contradicted what he already believed, and his work was hugely helpful to creationist efforts. He's apparently been rehabilitated. He was cited in a Scientific American article a few months ago for his work on the origin of galaxies.
™ Version 4.2
