Al_U_Card, on 2012-June-24, 16:42, said:
Put another way:
If at first you don't succeed, lie, lie again.
When will they ever get tired of trotting out those climate-modeled projections with so much "uncertainty"? Oh, right, those ones ARE NOT CATASTROPHIC, just realistic.
I'd like to use the following post as a useful example regarding why ad hominem attack is necessary on the internet.
Here, once again, we see an example where Al_U_Card is posting a badly flawed analysis, gussied up with a cute graphic.
It is well know that different locations in California experience changes in sea level very differently. In part this is due to the fact sea level change is impacted significantly by ocean currents. (This is why sea levels from the middle of North Carolina --> North are rising much more than other locations). California has another very important driver: All of the fault lines that cross that area. The primary reason that the sea level in San Francisco is not rising is that the land itself is buckling up at approximately the same rate that ocean levels are rising.
Lets turn to the chart that Al copies from "Watt's Up with That". This chart applies projections for sea level rise for the entire California Coast to one very specific region. I agree that the projections look fairly strange. However, the issue isn't with the underlying models, rather the results of the models are being deliberately misapplied in order to discredit the studies.
More simply put: This is yet another example where Al is deliberately posting a biased analysis to try to score cheap points.
This happens frequently enough that we can pretty much dismiss any / all posts by Al as a deliberate attempt to inject noise into the conversation.
Some people claim that its wrong to attack the source of information rather than the specifics. However, when the source is clearly biased and has a history of posting incorrect information, labeling the source as a ***** seems only right and proper.