Bias

[theenforcer]

I seem like a rational guy to most people, so sometimes they wonder why I can be skeptical of global warming after all we've heard about how terrible it's going to be. I mention to those people that I was shown videos in elementary school that threatened that acid rain was becoming such a huge global problem that it was causing our very umbrellas

Comments

[cinnamon_digory]

... oro?

is this all real?

[theenforcer]

Every word.

[cinnamon_digory]

... so...

but...

doesn't climate change still have less drastic negatives?

[quikchange]

I did notice that you sneakily (accidentally?) switched units for cubic metres to cubic kilometres (a million times bigger).

But I'm reminded of this comic.

[theenforcer]

Sorry, no time for intenet chatter, I'm expecting the climatologists to belay through my windows any minute. I'm busy setting up forts.

[theenforcer]

On a more serious note, my actual opinion is that an environment of hysteria is bad for real science. I also don't trust the fact that the job security of those in charge of telling us in trouble increases dramatically the worse the situation ends up being. Throw in a couple stories of scientists with dissenting opinions being subjected to character assassination and I go "Holy crap, is the entire environmental movement insane?" I'd be happy to be convinced of global warming in a rational argument but most discussions I've seen on the topic come down to zomg, we're all going to die!!!!!!!!!!! - here's what the world will look like in thirty short years: a postapocalyptic wasteland which is mostly underwater. Stock up on water wings, or else!!!!!.

As for the post, there's one more major calculation error that I'm aware of. I abandoned the idea of making a cogent point - my opinion being next to worthless as a non-scientist - and just started blathering after a while (you may have noticed). Why are you reminded of that comic?

[quikchange]

Y'know, cancer researchers oversimplifying things to ensure that they stay well-funded.

[anonymous]

I especially love the title of this one, the icing on the cake!
-Sam

Your Math is Bad

[tangbu]

As Tony pointed out (sort of), 30 million cubic kilometers = 30 million billion cubic metres, so 361 billion square metres could theoretically be covered to a depth of 3 million metres. Something's wrong.

You misquoted your first link, which should be 361 million square km. How many square metres in a square km? I'll give you a hint: it's not 1,000. The 70m rise seems to agree with the real numbers.

Your Reading is Bad

[theenforcer]

Graeme said to Quikchange:
As for the post, there's one more major calculation error that I'm aware of. I abandoned the idea of making a cogent point - my opinion being next to worthless as a non-scientist - and just started blathering after a while (you may have noticed).

...but it's good to know there are people checking my work. :P